Davis-Rice v. Copenhaver

Filing 18

ORDER ON REMAND FOR RECONSIDERATION; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 2, 2011. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/2/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

ASTARTE DAVIS-RICE,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
PAUL COPENHAVER, Warden,
)
)
Respondent.
)
______________________________ )

No. C 07-5972 MMC (PR)
ORDER ON REMAND FOR
RECONSIDERATION; DIRECTIONS
TO CLERK

15
16
17

On November 27, 2007, petitioner, then a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

18

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,1 challenging

19

the calculation of her sentence by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). Specifically, petitioner

20

claimed credit, for time she spent in federal custody between July 23, 1991 and November 4,

21

1992, had not been applied toward her sentences in various federal criminal cases prosecuted

22

in the Virgin Islands.

23
24
25
26

The matter of the calculation of petitioner’s federal sentences has been addressed in
detail in a prior habeas corpus action filed by petitioner in this district. See Davis-Rice v.
United States, C 03-0464 DLJ.
In that action, petitioner challenged the BOP’s calculation of consecutive sentences

27
28

1

Petitioner has been released from custody and currently resides in Point Arena,
California. See Davis-Rice v. United States, C 11-3203 MMC.

1

imposed in three federal criminal cases, specifically, Case Nos. 88-0132, 88-0133, and 88-

2

0403.2 On April 14, 2005, after a hearing, the district court granted petitioner 1200 days of

3

sentence credits on the ground the BOP had failed to apply federal good time credits as

4

required by 18 U.S.C. § 5003(c), which provides that territorial prisoners are subject to all of

5

the laws and regulations applicable to federal prisoners. The district court dismissed as

6

unexhausted petitioner’s claims regarding credit for time served. Thereafter, on September 5,

7

2006, after petitioner and the BOP reached a stipulated agreement, the district court granted

8

petitioner an additional eight months and fifteen days of sentence credits.
Petitioner next filed the instant action, on November 27, 2007, claiming she had not

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

been provided credit for time served in 1991and 1992, and that she had now exhausted her

11

administrative remedies with respect thereto.

12

On April 11, 2008, this Court dismissed the action as duplicative.

13

Petitioner appealed. The Ninth Circuit has remanded for the Court to reconsider

14

whether petitioner’s now-exhausted claims for credit for time served should have been

15

dismissed by this Court as duplicative, in light of the fact such claims previously were

16

dismissed as unexhausted in Case No. C 03-0464 DLJ.

17

The Court finds petitioner’s claims for credit for time served remain subject to

18

dismissal. Specifically, although those claims initially were dismissed as unexhausted in

19

Case No. C 03-0464 DLJ, the parties later reached a stipulated agreement, in which petitioner

20

agreed to dismiss all claims raised in that action. The stipulated agreement reads in relevant

21

part:

22
23
24
25

Petitioner’s petition in this action shall be dismissed with prejudice. . . .
Petitioner also agrees not to pursue any administrative remedies or U.S. District
Court litigation relating to any issues raised in her petition in this action . . . .
Petitioner Astarte Davis-Rice does hereby release and forever discharge the
federal defendants, the United States and any and all of its past and present
officials, employees, agents, attorneys, their successors and assigns, from any
and all obligations, damages, liabilities, actions, causes of action, claims and

26
27
28

2

Petitioner had also been sentenced in a fourth criminal case, Case No. 91-030. She
did not challenge the calculation of her sentence arising from that conviction.
2

1

demands of any kind and nature whatsoever arising out of the allegations set
forth in petitioner’s pleadings in this action.

2

Stipulation for Compromise Settlement and Release and Order, C 03-0464 DLJ.
3

In sum, petitioner dismissed her credit claims, including credit for time served, in
4

return for her negotiated reduced sentence. The stipulation is a binding contract that
5

forecloses petitioner from raising such claims here. See In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd.,
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

22 F.3d 954, 957-58 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding district court has power to “summarily enforce
settlements”).
Further, even if such claims had not been dismissed by the settlement, the claims now
are subject to dismissal as moot. Specifically, the Court has confirmed through the BOP and
the United States Probation Office that petitioner no longer is in custody and that her
supervised release ended on May 13, 2011. Petitioner cannot seek credit on a sentence
already served in full. See United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999)
(holding challenge to prison sentence becomes moot once sentence has been served).
In sum, the Court finds petitioner’s sentencing credit claims, although exhausted at the
time she filed the instant petition, must be dismissed because (1) petitioner voluntarily
dismissed those claims in a prior action, C 03-0464 DLJ, and (2) the claims are now moot.
CONCLUSION

18
19
20
21
22
23

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:
1. The petition is hereby dismissed.
2. The Clerk shall enter judgment for respondent and close the file.
3. The Clerk is directed to change petitioner’s address of record to reflect the
following: Astarte Davis-Rice, P.O. Box 429, Point Arena, CA 95468.3

24
25
3

The Point Arena P.O. Box is the most recent address on file for petitioner. See Case
No. C 11-3203 MMC. Court mail sent to petitioner at her prior address of record has been
27 returned as undeliverable. (See Dkt. No. 17.) Petitioner is reminded she must keep the Court
and all parties informed of any change of address.
26

28

3

1
2

4. The Clerk shall forward a copy of this order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
and to petitioner at her updated address.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED: November 2, 2011

5

_________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4