Lopez-Rocha v. United States, 3:18-cv-00021

Background

Petitioner Isidro Lopez-Rocha was charged by a single-count Information on December 5, 2017, for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine; his criminal case remains pending.
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging events arising from the ongoing criminal proceedings, alleging he was coerced into agreeing to plead guilty and accept a 50–70 month range.
Petitioner requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) but did not supply the statutory affidavit or the warden’s certificate required by the governing rule.
The Court nevertheless granted IFP based on Petitioner’s sworn inability to pay, for judicial efficiency.
The Court conducted a preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases and determined the petition facially fails to state a basis for relief because Petitioner is not yet convicted or sentenced and thus not "in custody" for § 2241 purposes.
The petition was dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend; the Court instructed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IFP was properly supported	Lopez-Rocha asserted inability to pay the filing fee	Government noted Petitioner did not provide required affidavit or warden’s certificate	Court excused formal requirements and granted IFP based on sworn statement of poverty
Whether § 2241 provides relief for claims arising from ongoing criminal proceedings	Lopez-Rocha challenged alleged coercion related to plea and sentencing range and sought habeas relief under § 2241	Implied: relief should be pursued in the criminal case or after conviction; § 2241 requires custody under a conviction or sentence	Court held § 2241 relief unavailable because petitioner was not in custody pursuant to a conviction or sentence at filing
Whether the “in custody” requirement is satisfied	Lopez-Rocha argued his detention and alleged coercion justified § 2241 relief	Government argued Maleng requires custody pursuant to the conviction/sentence under attack; no conviction yet here	Court held Maleng controls: petitioner not "in custody" under a conviction/sentence, so § 2241 claim fails
Whether alleged coercion to plead guilty can be remedied via § 2241 now	Lopez-Rocha sought to invalidate plea agreement/coerced terms via habeas	Government argued any plea issues should be raised in the criminal case or after conviction; no plea entered so alleged agreement is nonbinding	Court dismissed habeas petition without prejudice; directed defendant to raise challenges in the criminal case (or after conviction)

Key Cases Cited

Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (Sup. Ct. 1989) ("in custody" requires custody pursuant to the conviction or sentence under attack)
Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990) (Rule 4 screening authority and dismissal when petition plainly lacks merit)
Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2000) (custodial court must hear challenges to manner, location, or conditions of sentence execution under § 2241)
Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13 (9th Cir. 1971) (habeas petitions may be dismissed without leave to amend when no tenable claim can be pleaded)