In Munoz v. Smith, --- F.4th ---, No. 20-16327 (9th Cir. 2021), the Court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the subject petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
As a result of a prior, Nevada sex offense, Munoz was on lifetime supervision, which consisted of the following conditions: (1) a $30 monthly fee to defray the costs of his supervision; (2) electronic monitoring; and (3) a requirement that he may reside at a location only if the residence has been approved by his parole officer, and that he keep his parole officer informed of his current address.
Munoz filed a 2254 arguing that his lifetime supervision conditions violated his due process rights and the Ex Post Facto Clause.
The Court held the district court did not have jurisdiction over the petition because Munoz was no longer in custody.
"A person may seek federal habeas relief if he is 'in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.' 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). . . . We hold that under our precedents and on this record, the[] conditions do not severely and immediately restrain the petitioner’s physical liberty. Petitioner is therefore not challenging his 'custody,' and his claims are not cognizable in federal habeas."
"On remand, the district court may determine whether to allow Munoz, upon a proper showing, leave to file an amended habeas petition that could secure jurisdiction under § 2254. In addition, or alternatively, the district court may consider whether it would be appropriate to construe [Munoz’s] petition for habeas corpus to plead a cause of action under § 1983 after notifying and obtaining informed consent from Munoz."
