Wooten v. Kernan et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting 17 Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration. Since Wooten was neither in state custody nor on parole when he filed his petition, the Court lacks jurisdiction over his claims. The Court GRANTS respondent's reconsideration motion and DISMISSES Wootens petition for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 1/3/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(acc) (sjt).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM FRED WOOTEN,

14
15

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. No. 17)

Petitioner,

12
13

Case No.: 17-cv-0094-AJB-WVG

v.
SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,
Respondents.

16

After the Court issued its ruling concluding the record supported a finding that

17

Wooten was still in state custody due to California’s mandatory parole, (Doc. No. 15), the

18

state deputy attorney found evidence—obtained four days post-ruling—that Wooten had

19

been discharged from parole on March 3, 2016. (Doc. No. 17-1 at 1.) Although this

20

evidence confirms he indeed was not in state custody when he filed his habeas petition, it

21

was absent from the 877-page administrative record filed with the Court. (Doc. No. 9.) It

22

also was not mentioned in the post-R&R objection period, as no reply was filed in response

23

to Wooten’s objections, in which he first raised this argument. (Doc. No. 14.)

24

The Court has discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and local rule

25

7.1(1) to grant reconsideration motions when there are “new or different facts and

26

circumstances . . . which did not exist, or were not shown . . .” before. CivLR7.1(i)(1).

27

Although the parole discharge sheet is not newly discovered evidence, it was not previously

28

obtained or shown in the record. Because the evidence now shows Wooten was not in
1
17-cv-0094-AJB-WVG

1

custody when he filed his petition in January 2017, he does not fulfill the 28 U.S.C. § 2254

2

custody requirements. Only those “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court”

3

may file a § 2254 habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Brock v. Weston, 31 F.3d 887, 889

4

(9th Cir. 1994). Thus, since Wooten was neither in state custody nor on parole when he

5

filed his petition, the Court lacks jurisdiction over his claims. The Court GRANTS

6

respondent’s reconsideration motion and DISMISSES Wooten’s petition for lack of

7

jurisdiction.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated: January 3, 2018

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17-cv-0094-AJB-WVG