Isaiah Isaac Wooten v. W.L. Montgomery, Warden

Filing 21

ORDER adopting 18 Report and Recommendation, overruling Petitioner's objections, and granting 14 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with prejudice. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 9/27/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Petitioner,

11
12

Case No.: 16cv1327-JAH (MDD)

ISAIAH ISAAC WOOTEN,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 18],
OVERRULING PETITIONER’S
OBJECTION [Doc. No. 20], AND
GRANTING RESPONDENT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. No. 14]

v.

13
14

W.L. MONTGOMERY, Warden,
Respondent.

15
16
17
18
19
20

BACKGROUND

21
22

Petitioner, Isaiah Isaac Wooten, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, originally filed

23

his federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on March 1, 2016 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

24

2254. Doc. No. 1. In his Petition, Wooten argues that: (1) Petitioner’s abstract of

25

judgment should be changed to exclude the 25-years to life sentence; (2) the Court should

26

request a parole hearing; and (3) the Court should give 1,465 days of credits to

27

Petitioner’s sentence. Id.

28
1
16cv1327-JAH (MDD)

1

On September 9, 2016, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the Petition for Writ

2

of Habeas Corpus. Doc. No. 14. Respondent argues the petition is untimely,

3

unexhausted, and moot. Id. Specifically, Respondent contends that the one-year statute

4

of limitations imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”)

5

lapsed, at latest, in 2008, rendering Petitioner’s 2016 claim moot and untimely. Id.

6

Respondent also posits that Petitioner failed to exhaust all state court remedies for his

7

second and third claims. Id. at pgs. 3-6. Petitioner filed a response in opposition to the

8

motion to dismiss on October 7, 2016. Doc. No. 16.

9

On November 21, 2016, the Honorable Mitchell D. Dembin, United States

10

Magistrate Judge, issued a report and recommendation (“Report”) addressing the motion

11

and recommending this Court grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss. Doc. No. 18 at pgs.

12

12-13. Objections to the Report were due by December 9, 2016. Id. Petitioner filed a

13

letter which the Court construes as an objection to the Report on December 20, 2016.1

14

Doc. No. 20.

15

After careful consideration of the pleadings and relevant exhibits submitted and for

16

the reasons set forth below, this Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s Report,

17

OVERRULES the objection, and GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss.

18

DISCUSSION

19

I.

20

Legal Standard
The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and

21

recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the court “shall

22

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report…to which objection is

23

made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

24

recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” Id. The party objecting to the

25
26

27

1

28

The Court recognizes that Petitioner filed his objection past the December 9th deadline set in the
Report, however, Petitioner explains in his objection that circumstances out of his control were
responsible for the delay. Thus, the Court accepts Petitioner’s objection as timely.

2
16cv1327-JAH (MDD)

1

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation bears the responsibility of specifically

2

setting forth which of the magistrate judge’s findings the party contests. See Fed. R. Civ.

3

P. 72(b). It is well-settled, under Rule 72(b), that a district court may adopt those

4

portions of a magistrate judge’s report to which no specific objection is made, provided

5

they are not clearly erroneous. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

6
7
8
9

II.

Analysis
a. Count One
i. Statute of Limitations
Judge Dembin found a one year statute of limitations applied to Petitioner’s federal

10

habeas corpus petition. Doc. No. 18. AEDPA imposes a one-year statute of limitations

11

on federal prisoners for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. 28 U.S.C. §

12

2244(d). The one-year limitation applies to all habeas petitions filed by persons in

13

custody pursuant to state court judgment. Id. Petitioner was sentenced to a life term in

14

May 2006 by the Riverside County Superior Court for attempted murder, an

15

enhancement of “25 to life” for discharging a firearm that caused great bodily injury, and

16

five years for discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle. Doc. No. 18 at pgs. 2-3.

17

Another “25 to life” enhancement for discharging a firearm was added on to the sentence

18

on Count Two. Id. at pg. 3. Therefore, Petitioner is confined as a result of a state court

19

judgment. Doc. No. 18 at pgs. 2-4.

20

Pursuant to 2244(d)(1)(A), the one-year limitation period runs from the date on

21

which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of

22

the time for seeking such review. Id. Here, Petitioner was found guilty of attempted

23

murder and the discharge of a firearm from a motor vehicle. Doc. No. 18 at pg. 2.

24

Petitioner was sentenced on May 17, 2006. Id. Petitioner’s conviction became final on

25

October 7, 2008, 90 days after the California Supreme Court denied direct review. Id. at

26

pg. 8; Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999); U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 13. Because

27

Petitioner’s conviction occurred after the enactment of AEDPA, the statute of limitations

28

expired on October 7, 2009. Hasan v. Galaza, 254 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2001). The
3
16cv1327-JAH (MDD)

1

instant action was not filed until March 1, 2016.2 Doc. No. 1. The Court adopts the

2

magistrate judge’s finding as it is not clearly erroneous.

3

ii. Clerical Error

4

Judge Dembin found that Petitioner’s action is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a),

5

which allows federal habeas review only for claims that allege a violation of the

6

Constitution, federal law, or treaties. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Doc. No. 18 at pg. 9.

7

Moreover, federal habeas review cannot be applied for alleged misinterpretation or

8

misapplication of state law unless it involves “fundamental unfairness.” See Estelle v.

9

McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Here, Petitioner’s first and second abstracts of

10

judgment incorrectly show that Petitioner was a habitual sex offender. Doc. No. 18 at pg.

11

10. As a result, Petitioner mistakenly believed the “habitual sex offender” charge was the

12

reason for his “25 years to life” sentence. Id. at pg. 11; Doc. No. 15-1 at pg. 23. The

13

record reflects the description of the offense in the abstracts was a clerical error. Doc.

14

No. 18. The clerical error, however, is not responsible for Petitioner’s sentence, and the

15

trial court corrected the abstract of judgment. Id. Petitioner has not met the

16

“fundamental unfairness” standard and fails to raise a cognizable issue. The magistrate

17

judge found that Petitioner did not allege a set, cognizable violation of the Constitution,

18

federal law, or treaties.

19

Petitioner filed a letter which the Court construes as an objection to the Report on

20

December 20, 2016. Doc. No. 20. The letter indicates that Petitioner believes the Report

21

erred only with respect to the finding that the clerical error did not impact Petitioner’s

22

sentence. Id. This Court finds that after its independent review of the record, the

23

magistrate judge provided a cogent analysis in addressing the clerical error. For these

24
25
26
27
28

2

In the Report, Judge Dembin noted that, in order to be eligible for statutory or equitable tolling,
Petitioner must be timely in filing his petition, diligently pursue his rights, or show he was prevented
from diligently pursuing his rights by extraordinary circumstances. Doc. No. 18 at pg. 9. The Court
agrees with the Report that Petitioner failed to meet any of these requirements.

4
16cv1327-JAH (MDD)

1

reasons, the Court overrules Petitioner’s objection. The Court adopts the magistrate

2

judge’s finding as it is not clearly erroneous.

3

b. Counts Two and Three

4

i. Failure to Exhaust State Remedies

5

Counts Two and Three alleged violations of Petitioner’s claim to an immediate

6

parole hearing and 1,465 days of credits towards the sentence respectively. Doc No. 18

7

at pg. 2. Judge Dembin found that Petitioner did not exhaust all available state remedies

8

on these claims before pursuing the instant action. Id. at pgs. 11-12. Petitioners that seek

9

federal habeas relief must first exhaust all state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). In

10

order to meet this exhaustion requirement, Petitioner need either bring his claim to the

11

highest possible state court or show that all possible state remedies have been exhausted.

12

Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, Petitioner has not shown that

13

he exhausted all possible state remedies. The record demonstrates he did not bring

14

claims two and three to the California Supreme Court. Doc. No. 1 at pgs. 5-6. Thus,

15

Petitioner did not meet the exhaustion requirement to seek federal habeas relief. The

16

Court adopts the findings of the Report as it is not clearly erroneous.

17

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

18

The Court conducted a de novo review, independently reviewing the Report and all

19

relevant papers submitted by both parties, and finds the Report provides a cogent analysis

20

of each of the three claims presented by Petitioner.

21

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

22

1. The finding and conclusions of the magistrate judge presented in the Report (Doc.

23

No. 18) are ADOPTED in the entirety;

24

2. Petitioner’s Objection (Doc. No. 20) is OVERRULED;

25

3. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED;

26

//

27

//

28
5
16cv1327-JAH (MDD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

4. The Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DIMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
DATED:

September 27, 2017
_________________________________
JOHN A. HOUSTON
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
16cv1327-JAH (MDD)