At page 61 Determining if license suspension constitutes custody for habeas relief20 citing casessuspension or revocation of driver's license does not satisfy the in- custody requirement
- Hays v. Judge, No. 5:25-cv-05129 (W.D. Ark. June 18, 2025).(suspension or revocation of driver's license does not satisfy the in- custody requirement)
- Nowakowski v. New York, 835 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2016).published See, e.g., Barnickel v. United States, 113 F.3d 704, 706 (7th Cir. 1997) (restitution); United States v. Michaud, 901 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (monetary fine); Lefkowitz v. Fair, 816 F.2d 17, 20 (1st Cir. 1987) (suspension of…
- Virsnieks v. Smith, 521 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 2008).publishedId. (citing Lillios v. New Hampshire, 788 F.2d 60, 61 (1st Cir.1986); Harts, 732 F.2d at 96-97 ; Westberry v. Keith, 434 F.2d 623, 624-25 (5th Cir.1970)).
- Virsnieks, Albert M. v. Smith, Judy P., No. 06-3322 (7th Cir. Apr. 2, 2008).publishedId. (citing Lillios v. New Hampshire, 788 F.2d 60, 61 (1st Cir. 1986); Harts, 732 F.2d at 96-97 ; Westberry v. Keith, 434 F.2d 623, 624-25 (5th Cir. 1970)).
- Elbert W. Williamson v. Christine O. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 1998).publishedBarnickel v. United States, 113 F.3d 704, 706 (7th Cir.1997) (restitution); Smullen v. United States, 94 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir.1996) (restitution); United States v. Gaudet, 81 F.3d 585, 592 (5th Cir.1996) (fine); United States v. Watroba, 5…
- Barry v. Bergen Cnty. Prob. Dep't, 128 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 1997).publishedLikewise, several courts have held that the imposition of certain civil disabilities does not constitute "custody." See, e.g., Lefkowitz,, 816 F.2d at 20 (revocation of medical license is not custody); Lillios v. New Hampshire, 788 F.2d 60…
- Barry v. Bergen Cty Prob., No. 96-5577 (3d Cir. Oct. 22, 1997).Likewise, several courts have held that the imposition of certain civil disabilities does not constitute "custody." See, e.g., Lefkowitz, , 816 F.2d at 20 (revocation of medical license is not custody); Lillios v. New Hampshire, 788 F.2d 6…
- Poodry v. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians, 85 F.3d 874 (2d Cir. 1996).publishedThe most important example of this inquiry is a line of cases holding that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge a conviction that resulted only in a cash fine or a short-lived suspension of privileges, compare…
- Poodry v. Tonawanda Band Of Seneca Indians, 85 F.3d 874 (2d Cir. 1996).publishedThe most important example of this inquiry is a line of cases holding that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge a conviction that resulted only in a cash fine or a short-lived suspension of privileges, compare…
- Gilday v. Garvey, 919 F. Supp. 506 (D. Mass. 1996).publishedCourt v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 300-01 , 104 S.Ct. 1805, 1809 , 80 L.Ed.2d 311 (1984); and Lillios v. State of N.H., 788 F.2d 60, 61 (1st Cir.1986).
Show 8 more citing cases
- William M. McClenny Jr. v. Edward W. Murray, 33 F.3d 52 (4th Cir. 1994).unpublishedSee Lefkowitz v. Fair, 816 F.2d 17, 20 (1st Cir.1987); Lillios v. New Hampshire, 788 F.2d 60, 61 (1st Cir.1986).
- Kingsley v. Commonwealth of MA, 2 F.3d 1148 (1st Cir. 1993).unpublishedSee, 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 Sec. 2255 purposes); Lillios v. State of New Hampshire, 788…
- United States v. Hubert Michaud, 901 F.2d 5 (1st Cir. 1990).publishedLillios v. State of New Hampshire, 788 F.2d 60, 61 (1st Cir.1986); see also, Lefkowitz v. Fair, 816 F.2d 17, 20 (1st Cir.1987).
- Wholey v. Bradley, No. 1:23-cv-12566 (D. Mass. Nov. 15, 2023).See Lillios v. New Hampshire, 788 F.2d 60, 61 (1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam); Westberry v. Keith, 434 F.2d 623 , 624–25 (5th Cir.1970) (per curiam) (holding that revocation of the right to drive is not a sufficient restriction of liberty to…
- Thrower v. City of Akron, 43 F. App'x 767 (6th Cir. 2002).unpublishedSee Lillios v. New Hampshire, 788 F.2d 60, 61 (1st Cir.1986).
- Jones v. Grant, 5 F. App'x 836 (10th Cir. 2001).unpublishedSee Lillios v. New Hampshire, 788 F.2d 60, 61 (1st Cir.1986) (per curiam); Harts v. Indiana, 732 F.2d 95, 96-97 (7th Cir.1984) (per curiam); Westberry v. Keith, 434 F.2d 623, 624-25 (5th Cir.1970) (per curiam).
- Eric Wilson v. W. Flaherty, 689 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2012).published Compare Lillios v. New Hampshire, 788 F.2d 60, 61 (1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam) ("[F]ines and [driver’s license] suspensions . . . are not the sort of severe restraint on individual liberty for which habeas corpus relief is reserved." (quot…
- Fischer v. Ozaukee Cnty. Circuit Court, 741 F. Supp. 2d 944 (E.D. Wis. 2011).publishedSee, e.g., United States v. Michaud, 901 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir.1990) (citing Lillios v. State of New Hampshire, 788 F.2d 60, 61 (1st Cir.1986); Lefkowitz v. Fair, 816 F.2d 17, 20 (1st Cir.1987)) (cited in Virsnieks v. Smith, 521 F.3d 707, 717…
v.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, Et Al., Respondents, Appellees; Evangelos D. LILLIOS, Petitioner, Appellant, v. CONCORD DISTRICT COURT, Et Al., Respondents, Appellees
According to petitioner’s habeas petitions, he received two vehicle speeding violations and incurred a $165.00 fine and 15 day license suspension in the first case and a $66.00 fine and 30 day license suspension in the second case. After the New Hampshire Supreme Court had rejected his appeals, petitioner filed the instant habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Noting that a person must be “in custody” to invoke the remedy of habeas corpus and concluding that petitioner had not satisfied the custody requirement, see Harts v. Indiana, 732 F.2d 95 (9th Cir.1984) (one year suspension of driving license does not satisfy the “in custody” requirement); Westber-ry v. Keith, 434 F.2d 623 (5th Cir.1970) ($250 fine and one year license revocation); see also Tinder v. Paula, 725 F.2d 801, 804 (1st Cir.1984) (habeas is not available as a remedy for a fine-only conviction), the district court dismissed the petitions and denied certificates of probable cause. Petitioner now seeks certificates of probable cause from this court.
Petitioner, completely divorcing the case from its facts, reads Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 104 S.Ct. 1805, 1810, 80 L.Ed.2d 311 (1984), to hold that all persons released on bail or on their own recognizance are in custody for habeas corpus purposes regardless whether or not they face any possibility of incarceration. Petitioner then points to cash register receipts referring to bail he posted pending his state court appeals and contends he has been released on bail and therefore is “in custody.” Petitioner’s state court appeals apparently have all been finally determined adversely to petitioner. But even if, at the time petitioner filed his § 2254 petitions, he was on “bail” in the sense that execution of his sentences calling for fines and license suspension had been stayed, nothing in Lydon — a case involving a defendant who, unlike petitioner, was awaiting bail and potentially faced incarceration if convicted — suggests that the modest fines and temporary suspension to which petitioner is subject render petitioner “in custody” for § 2254 purposes. Rather, we agree with those courts which have concluded that fines and suspensions of the amount here involved are not the sort of “ ‘severe[ ] restraint on individual liberty’ for which habeas corpus relief is reserved.” Harts v. Indiana, 732 F.2d 95, 97 (7th Cir.1984); Westberry v. Keith, 434 F.2d 623, 624-25 (5th Cir.1970).
The certificates of probable cause are denied and the appeals are terminated.