Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01146/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01146-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

27

28

- 1 - 08cv1146

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

N. WALLACE,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08cv1146-LAB (POR)

ORDER OVERRULING

OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; AND

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS PETITION

[Docket no. 29.]

vs.

LARRY SMALL, Warden,

Respondent.

On February 9, 2009, Warden Larry Small (the “Respondent”) moved to dismiss the

amended petition filed by Nathaniel Wallace (the “Petitioner”). The motion was referred to

Magistrate Judge Louisa Porter for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d). On August 20, 2009, Judge Porter issued her report

and recommendation (the “R&R”). Although the R&R recommended denying Respondent’s

motion to dismiss, it was Petitioner who filed objections to the R&R. Respondent filed no

objections of his own, and did not reply to Petitioner’s objections.

Petitioner argues he has been in custody longer than he should have been. His

argument is that he has served his sentence on all counts of which he was convicted except

(arguably) count 4. He contends the trial court never included this count in its

pronouncement of judgment or sentenced him for this count, and he was improperly

Case 3:08-cv-01146-LAB-POR Document 48 Filed 09/15/09 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

- 2 - 08cv1146

“sentenced” on this count by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,

by simply writing in a sentence on the abstract of judgment.

The R&R notes that the documentary record is incomplete, and based on the record

before the Court, the motion to dismiss must therefore be denied without prejudice. In the

event Respondent again moves to dismiss, the R&R requires him both to file a complete

record, and also to brief the legal significance of the abstract of judgment as it pertains to the

jury’s verdict and the sentence imposed at the sentencing hearing.

Petitioner’s objections consist of, essentially, a summary of the claims he raises in his

amended petition. It is unclear what exactly he is objecting to, since the ruling is favorable

to him. It may be that he believes the motion should be denied with prejudice rather than

without, but he does not say so. In any event, the Court finds denial without prejudice is

appropriate given the incompleteness of the record. Petitioner’s objections are therefore

OVERRULED AS MOOT. The Court ADOPTS the R&R and DENIES the motion to dismiss.

Because it is apparent the complete record will be needed, Respondent is directed

to obtain it promptly so as to be able to file it without undue delay when required.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 14, 2009

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01146-LAB-POR Document 48 Filed 09/15/09 Page 2 of 2