1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LATOYA R. FINLEY-CARMINER, No. 2:25-cv-2789 DAD CSK P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 15 Respondents. 16

17 18 Petitioner is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an application for writ of 19 habeas corpus under

. This action was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On November 10, 2025, this 21 Court ordered petitioner to show cause, within fourteen days, why this action should not be 22 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Fourteen days have passed, and petitioner failed to respond or 23 otherwise show cause why this action should not be dismissed. Accordingly, this Court 24 recommends that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 25 I. PETITIONER’S ALLEGATIONS 26 In her petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under

, petitioner 27 challenges a pending arrest warrant issued in Sacramento County, California on December 11, 28 2024. (ECF No. 1 at 1-4; 61.) Petitioner alleges that the arrest warrant lacks a valid affidavit of 1 probable cause, is based on fabricated jurisdictional elements, and seeks to prosecute conduct 2 already adjudicated in a prior criminal case. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Petitioner claims she faces 3 imminent unlawful detention and requests emergency relief. (Id.) 4 II. GOVERNING STANDARDS 5 The Court is required to screen all habeas petitions upon filing, and to summarily dismiss 6 “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled 7 to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitions brought 8 pursuant to Section 2241 may be subjected to the same screening requirements. See Rule 1(b) (a 9 district court may “apply any or all of these rules” to any habeas petition); see also Bostic v. 10 Carlson,

(9th Cir. 1989) (affirming district court’s dismissal of a Section 11 2241 petition under Habeas Rules 1(b) and 4). Accordingly, whether petitioner is in custody 12 pursuant to a state court judgment and thus seeking relief under

, or is in pre- 13 judgment custody and seeking relief under

, the case must be summarily 14 dismissed if it plainly appears from the pleadings that petitioner is not entitled to relief. However, 15 before dismissing a petition under Rule 4, district courts must provide habeas petitioners notice of 16 the grounds for dismissal and an opportunity to be heard. See Race v. Salmonsen,

, 17 794 (9th Cir. 2025) (reversing sua sponte dismissal under Rule 4 where petitioner received first 18 notice of defect in order of dismissal). 19 III. DISCUSSION 20 A federal court does not have jurisdiction to provide habeas relief unless a petitioner 21 alleges that the conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 22 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). Section 2241 provides the authority for granting habeas relief to a person 23 “who is not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment” but is in custody for some other reason, 24 such as pretrial detention or awaiting extradition. White v. Lambert,

(9th 25 Cir. 2004) (overruled on other grounds by Hayward v. Marshall,

(9th Cir. 2010)). 26 In pertinent part,

(c) states that “[t]he writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a 27 prisoner unless --” the prisoner “is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United 28 States or is committed for trial before some court thereof.”

(c)(1). A federal 1 | district court may only consider a habeas petition if the petitioner was in custody at the time of 2 | filing of the federal petition. Maleng v. Cook,

(1989) (per curiam); Bailey 3 || v. Hill,

(9th Cir. 2010). As with other jurisdictional prerequisites, this 4 | Court must raise the issue of custody sua sponte. See Tyars v. Finner,

(9th 5 || Cir. 1983) (addressing issue of custody even though respondent did not raise issue). 6 Section 2241 relief is available for state pre-trial detainees challenging their detention in 7 || state custody. See McNeely v. Blanas,

, 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that 8 || § 2241 is proper because pretrial detainee does not meet § 2254’s criteria of being in custody 9 || “pursuant to the judgment of a State court.”). Here, however, petitioner does not allege that she is 10 || in custody, subject to pretrial detention, or awaiting extradition. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner does not 11 | allege facts demonstrating that she is in custody as required to pursue relief under § 2241. 12 | □□ U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1). Rather, petitioner is attempting to invalidate an arrest warrant, issued 13 || December 11, 2024, which apparently has not yet been executed. Because petitioner was not in 14 || custody at the time this action was filed, habeas corpus relief under

is not 15 || available to her. The Court recommends that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 16 | IV. CONCLUSION 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas 18 || corpus under

be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 20 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(I). Within fourteen days 21 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 22 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 23 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that 24 || failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 25 || Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

(th Cir. 1991). 26 or . Dated: December 2, 2025 | / CAR ope 27 CHI SOO KIM 28 | armo789 fe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE