Bailey v. Hill

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction over habeas corpus 12 || petitions challenging only restitution orders
• holding that 7 || district courts lack jurisdiction under § 2254 to hear challenges to restitution orders raised by state 8 | prisoners who do not challenge the lawfulness of their custody under federal law
• holding that fines and restitution orders are improper claims under § 2254
• explaining that a petitioner held in a state prison 28 satisfies the “in custody” requirement
• holding state 21 prisoner’s in-custody challenge to restitution in criminal sentence is not 22 cognizable
• explaining that a petitioner held in a state prison 28 satisfies the “in custody” requirement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).