USCA1 Opinion
August 20, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 92-2310
LAWRENCE KINGSLEY,
Petitioner, Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL.,
Respondents, Appellees.
__________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
___________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Torruella and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
______________
___________________
Dr. Lawrence Kingsley on brief pro se.
_____________________
Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and Elisabeth J.
__________________ _____________
Medvedow, Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.
________
__________________
__________________
Per Curiam. Pro se petitioner Lawrence Kingsley
__________ ___ __
appeals from the dismissal of his petition for relief from
certain state court traffic convictions under 28 U.S.C.
2254. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the
parties' briefs on appeal. We are persuaded that this habeas
petition was properly dismissed because Kingsley was not "in
custody" when he filed it, therefore the district court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See, 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 2255 purposes);
Lillios v. State of New Hampshire, 788 F.2d 60, 61 (1st Cir.
_______ ______________________
1986)(per curiam) (modest fines for speeding and license
suspension "'not the sort of severe[] restraint on individual
liberty' for which habeas corpus relief is reserved")
(citations omitted); Tinder v. Paula, 725 F.2d 801, 804 (1st
______ _____
Cir. 1984).
Judgment affirmed
_________________
-2-
