Ben Gary Triestman v. Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General of New York

Where a state court order of protection that imposes severe constraints upon a non-incarcerated person's physical liberty and civil freedoms, and where he suffers "restraints not shared by the public generally" that equal or exceed the restraints held to be "in-custody" in Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963) and Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 (1973): Does a federal district court have jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition and recognize such person as "in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court" under 28 U. S. C. §2254(a)? Did the Appellate Court erroneously construe the scope of the habeas "in custody" element to apply only when a petitioner is legally compelled to act in constraint of his liberty? Or does the "in custody" scope also apply where a petitioner is legally restrained from acting in constraint of his liberty? Does the risk of arrest and detention pursuant to an unknowing or unintentional violation of said order of protection, implicate a cognizable risk of loss of liberty, regardless of eventual exoneration of the violation? -11-