Lance Williams v. Eric Arnold

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PETITION AND DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE by Judge Percy Anderson. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that judgment be entered: (1) DENYING the Petition; and (2) DISMISSING this action with prejudice. (See document for specifics.) (iva)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

Petitioner,

11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DENYING PETITION AND
DISMISSING ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE

v.

12
13

Case No. CV 15-4434-PA (KK)

LANCE WILLIAMS,

ERIC ARNOLD, Warden,
Respondent.

14
15
16
17

I.

18

INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Lance Williams (“Petitioner”) has filed a pro se Petition for Writ

19
20

of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) by a Person in State Custody pursuant to Title 28

21

of the United States Code, section 2254. However, the Court lacks subject matter

22

jurisdiction to consider the Petition. The Court thus denies the Petition and

23

dismisses this action with prejudice.

24

II.

25

BACKGROUND

26
27
28

A.

STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS
On December 13, 2010, Petitioner pled no contest and was convicted of

making criminal threats and stalking in violation of California Penal Code sections

1

422 and 646.9(b) in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. ECF Docket No.

2

(“Dkt.”) 1, Pet. at 2.1 On January 10, 2011, Petitioner was sentenced to three years

3

in prison. Id.; see Lodged Document No. (“Lodg.”) 9, Abstract of Judgment.2

4

Petitioner completed his sentence for the 2010 conviction and was released from

5

prison sometime before January 22, 2014. People v. Williams, No. B255379, 2015

6

WL 9311816, at *3 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2015); Lodg. 21, Decl. Nadeen McCool.
On January 22, 2014, after a jury trial in the Los Angeles County Superior

7
8

Court, Petitioner was convicted of attempted extortion, dissuading a witness from

9

reporting a crime, and stalking in violation of California Penal Code sections 524,

10

136.1(b)(1), and 646.9(a). Williams, 2015 WL 9311816, at *3; Los Angeles County

11

Superior Court, Criminal Case Summary, Case. No. LA075334-01 (Mar. 25, 2016,

12

1:09 PM), http://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/ Selection.aspx. In a

13

bifurcated trial, the jury found the following allegations true: (1) Petitioner had a

14

prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of California Penal Code

15

sections 667(a), 667(b)-(i), and 1170.12; and (2) Petitioner had served a prior

16

separate prison term for a felony within the meaning of California Penal Code

17

section 667.5(b). Williams, 2015 WL 9311816, at *1. On March 18, 2014, the

18

allegations were used to enhance Petitioner’s sentence and Petitioner was

19

sentenced to thirteen years and eight months in prison. Id. at *3.

20

On August 15, 2014, Petitioner was discharged from the sentence for his

21

2010 conviction after his three-year term expired. Lodg. 21. Thereafter, Petitioner

22

remained in prison for his 2014 conviction. Id.

23

B.

On June 7, 2015, Petitioner constructively filed3 the instant Petition. See

24
25
26
27
28

FEDERAL HABEAS PROCEEDINGS

Dkt. 1. Petitioner raises four claims: (1) “Petitioner’s incarceration is illegal as to
1

them.

The Court refers to Petitioner’s pleadings as if he consecutively paginated

The Court’s citations to Lodgments refer to documents Respondent lodged
in support of his Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 31, Notice of Lodging.
2

2

1

enhanced sentence for prior plea that was not voluntary because it was based on

2

misleading information and under duress;” (2) “Petitioner’s incarceration is illegal

3

as to enhanced sentence for prior plea which is invalid because he did not obtain

4

benefit of terms in plea agreement that were substantial inducements for plea

5

constituting breach of plea agreement;” (3) “Petitioner’s incarceration is illegal as

6

to enhanced sentence for prior plea which should be reversed because he was

7

denied right to self-representation;” and (4) “Petitioner’s incarceration is illegal as

8

to enhanced sentence for prior conviction resulting from plea which should be

9

reversed because he was denied right to effective assistance of counsel in pretrial

10

and[] postconviction proceedings.” E.g., id. at 5-9.
On February 16, 2016, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”)

11
12

Why this Action Should Not Be Dismissed Based Upon Lack of Subject Matter

13

Jurisdiction, Untimeliness, and Lackawanna Cty. Dist. Attorney v. Coss. Dkt. 35,

14

OSC. On March 13, 2016, Petitioner constructively filed a Response to the OSC,

15

stating he is “challenging his 2011 plea deal conviction” and claiming the Court has

16

subject matter jurisdiction over his action “because his 2011 conviction was used to

17

enhance 2014 conviction.” Dkt. 38, Response at 1-2.

18

III.

19

DISCUSSION

20

THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Section 2254(a) states a “district court shall entertain an application for a

21
22

writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a

23

State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution

24

or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The “in custody”

25

requirement is jurisdictional, and “therefore it is the first question [the Court]

26
27
28

Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a
pleading to mail to court, the Court deems the pleading constructively filed on the
date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010)
(citation omitted).
3
3

1

must consider.” Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010). A habeas

2

petitioner is not “in custody” once the sentence imposed for the conviction is

3

“fully expired.” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 491, 109 S. Ct. 1923, 104 L. Ed. 2d

4

540 (1989) (holding a petitioner is not “in custody” for a prior conviction merely

5

because the prior conviction enhanced his current sentence).

6

Here, on January 10, 2011, Petitioner was sentenced to three years in prison

7

for his 2010 conviction. Lodg. 9. By the time Petitioner constructively filed the

8

instant Petition over four years later on June 7, 2015, his sentence for his 2010

9

conviction had been expired for over a year, and he was no longer in custody for the

10

2010 conviction. Dkt. 1. Rather, Petitioner was discharged for the 2010 conviction

11

on August 15, 2014 and is currently in prison for the 2014 conviction alone. Lodg.

12

21. Thus, the Petition must be denied and this action must be dismissed. See

13

Maleng, 490 U.S. at 491.

14

IV.

15

CONCLUSION

16
17

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that judgment be entered: (1) DENYING
the Petition; and (2) DISMISSING this action with prejudice.

18
19
20

Dated: March 30, 2016
HONORABLE PERCY ANDERSON
United States District Judge

21
22
23

Presented by:

24
25
26
27

HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO
United States Magistrate Judge

28
4