860 F. 2d 1090 - Watts v. C Cupp
860 F2d 1090 Watts v. C Cupp
860 F.2d 1090
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Darwin WATTS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Hoyt C. CUPP, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 87-4261.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 6, 1988.
Decided Sept. 28, 1988.
Before HUG, FLETCHER and NELSON, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Advertisement
Respondent-Appellee's June 27, 1988 Motion to Vacate and Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED.
Petitioner-Appellant Darwin Watts was not "in custody" when he filed his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus on December 17, 1986, since more than two years earlier, on October 6, 1983, the State of Oregon fully discharged him as having completed his sentence and parole. Because Sec. 2241's requirement of custody at the time of filing is jurisdictional, Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 238 (1963), we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Watts's counsel has made disingenuous and misleading use of inapposite authority in his Supplemental Brief opposing dismissal. The position taken in the brief misrepresents the law and is completely lacking in merit.