Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06666/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06666-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILSON THOMAS, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-04-6666 OWW

(No. CR-F-98-5022 OWW)

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER DISMISSING 

PETITIONER'S MOTION TO

VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT

SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 216) AND

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT FOR

RESPONDENT

On November 22, 2004, Petitioner Wilson Thomas submitted a

pleading to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, captioned:

“Petition for Rehearing En Banc or Motion for Stay of Mandate

Pursuant to Under Write [sic] of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Title

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, To Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by

a Person in Federal Custody.” Attached to the Petition submitted

to the Ninth Circuit is a copy of a motion to vacate, set aside

or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and a memorandum

Case 1:04-cv-06666-OWW Document 2 Filed 08/05/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

of points and authorities in support of the Section 2255 motion. 

A copy of the docket in Wilson Thomas v. United States, No. CV-F01-6614 OWW is placed in the file with the handwritten notation:

“Should this go to DC? Should dc send this case up?” There is

also a handwritten notation: 

I think this belongs to your Court. It

appears that the 9 Cir. has nothing for th

this person. Maybe this can be treated as

his NoA. CoA has already been denied.

Thereafter, the Petition was filed in the Eastern District of

California and assigned Case No. CV-F-04-6666 OWW (Doc. 216).

Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct

sentence on December 28, 2001, which motion was assigned Case No.

CV-F-01-6614. By Order filed on September 8, 2004, Petitioner’s

Section 2255 motion was denied as untimely. (Doc. 214) A

Certificate of Appealability was denied by Order filed on

September 8, 2004. (Doc. 215). Petitioner filed a Notice of

Appeal on November 22, 2004. (Doc. 217). This Notice of Appeal

is identical to the Petition for Rehearing En Banc, etc. 

According to a notation on the District Court docket entry for

the Notice of Appeal: “[NOTE: Document was not entitled ‘Notice

of Appeal’ was never construed as such. On 3/10/06 the 9th

Circuit now says this is in fact an Appeal and needs to be worked

up.” (Doc. 217). On March 16, 2006, the appeal was processed

and the record transmitted to the Ninth Circuit. (Docs. 218-

219). Ninth Circuit Case No. 06-15521 was assigned to the

appeal. (Doc. 220). On June 23, 2006, filed with the District

Case 1:04-cv-06666-OWW Document 2 Filed 08/05/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

Court on July 5, 2006, the appeal of the denial of the Section

2255 motion was dismissed, the Ninth Circuit declining to issue a

Certificate of Appealability. (Doc. 222).

This action is DISMISSED. Case No. CV-F-04-6666 OWW was

opened in error. It is apparent from the record that Petitioner

did not file a Section 2255 motion on November 22, 2004; rather,

the Petition for Rehearing En Banc, etc. was a Notice of Appeal

to the Ninth Circuit from the denial of the Section 2255 motion

in Case No. CV-F-01-6614 OWW. 

For the reasons stated:

1. This action is DISMISSED.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter JUDGMENT FOR

RESPONDENT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06666-OWW Document 2 Filed 08/05/08 Page 3 of 3