] 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CALEB AZUCENA, Case No. 23-cv-00531-RS (PR) Petitioner, 11 2 Vv. ORDER OF DISMISSAL DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 13 SECURITY, 14 Respondent. 15 16 This federal action was filed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, that is, as a 17 || challenge to the validity or duration of petitioner’s custody. A review of the original and 18 || amended petitions indicates that petitioner 1s not challenging any confinement — in fact, 19 || he is not in custody at all. The federal writ of habeas corpus is only available to persons 20 || “in custody” at the time the petition is filed. See

(c), 2254(a); Carafas v. 21 || LaVallee,

(1968). Because petitioner is not in custody, this Court has 22 || no jurisdiction over his petition. 23 Rather than challenge his custody, petitioner raises claims of illegal search and 24 |) seizure at an unspecified airport and at San Francisco’s airport, and being touched 25 || inappropriately by border agents. (Am. Pet., Dkt. No. 5 at 5.) He seeks reinstatement of 26 || his travel rights and the return of his passport. (/d. at 6.) Petitioner should file a federal 27 || civil rights action against the federal employees from whom he seeks relief. A copy of the 28 || appropriate form will be sent to him. If petitioner files a federal civil rights action, it will

1 be a new suit, separate from the instant habeas action. He must not file his federal 2 complaint in the present habeas suit. 3 This federal habeas action is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. This dismissal 4 is without prejudice to petitioner raising his claims by way of a federal civil rights 5 complaint. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent and close the file. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: June _6__, 2023 _________________________ 8 RICHARD SEEBORG 9 Chief United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27