USCA1 Opinion

          August 20, 1993       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ___________________


          No. 92-2310

            


                                  LAWRENCE KINGSLEY,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                        COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL.,

                               Respondents, Appellees.


                                  __________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                          Torruella and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
                                             ______________

                                 ___________________

               Dr. Lawrence Kingsley on brief pro se.
               _____________________
               Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney  General,  and   Elisabeth  J.
               __________________                             _____________
          Medvedow, Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.
          ________



                                  __________________

                                  __________________

















                      Per Curiam.   Pro se  petitioner Lawrence  Kingsley
                      __________    ___ __

            appeals  from the dismissal  of his petition  for relief from

            certain  state court  traffic convictions  under 28  U.S.C.  

            2254.    We  have  thoroughly  reviewed  the  record  and the

            parties' briefs on appeal.  We are persuaded that this habeas

            petition was properly dismissed  because Kingsley was not "in

            custody"  when  he filed  it,  therefore  the district  court

            lacked subject matter jurisdiction.  See, e.g., United States
                                                 ___  ____  _____________

            v. Michaud, 901  F.2d 5,7  (1st Cir. 1990)  (per curiam)  ("A
               _______

            monetary fine is  not a  sufficient restraint  on liberty  to

            meet  the  'in custody'  requirement  for    2255  purposes);

            Lillios v. State of New Hampshire, 788 F.2d 60,  61 (1st Cir.
            _______    ______________________

            1986)(per  curiam) (modest  fines  for  speeding and  license

            suspension "'not the sort of severe[] restraint on individual

            liberty'  for  which  habeas  corpus   relief  is  reserved")

            (citations omitted);  Tinder v. Paula, 725 F.2d 801, 804 (1st
                                  ______    _____

            Cir. 1984).

                 Judgment affirmed     
                 _________________

















                                         -2-