Legal Opinion
Holmes v. Satterberg
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 14, 2013No. 11-36069PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM *
Joel Holmes appeals the district court’s dismissal of his habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Holmes’ habeas petition because Holmes was not “in custody” for purposes of habe-as jurisdiction at the time he filed his petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 978-79 (9th Cir.2010). The “in custody” requirement is met when a petitioner “is subject to a significant restraint upon his liberty ‘not shared by *661the public generally.’ ” Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 822 (9th…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Jones v. CunninghamSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Hensley v. Municipal Court, San Jose-Milpitas Judicial Dist., Santa Clara Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Bailey v. HillCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Elbert W. Williamson v. Christine O. GregoireCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Wilson v. BellequeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Emily Vega v. Eric T. SchneidermanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2017
- Aimee Albrecht v. Sheriff of Rock Island County IllinoisDistrict Court, C.D. Illinois · 2025
- Allen v. Minnesota, State ofDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2024
- Tyre Fred Newsome Sr. v. Hon. Crystal R. Villaseñor; Pamela Scheininger; New York County Family CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2026