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)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?