Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00839/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00839-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOYD FOSTER,

Petitioner,

v.

SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR 

COURT,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-00839-EMC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT

Docket No. 6

On April 30, 2019, the Court dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus and entered 

judgment because Petitioner did not satisfy the habeas custody requirement. As the Court 

explained, the federal writ of habeas corpus is only available to persons “in custody” for the 

conviction or sentence under attack at the time the petition is filed, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) and § 

2254(a); petitioner did not satisfy the custody requirement because his 7-year sentence for the 

1983 conviction he was trying to challenge had expired many years before he filed this action. 

Docket No. 3.

Petitioner has moved to alter or amend the judgment, arguing that he does satisfy the 

custody requirement for his challenge to the 1983 conviction because (a) that conviction has led to 

a higher bail amount in a criminal case now pending in the Fresno County Superior Court in which 

he is charged with felony DUI (“the Fresno case”), and (b) that conviction has been alleged as a 

prior strike conviction for sentence enhancement purposes and thus may lead to a longer sentence 

if Petitioner is ever convicted in the Fresno case. 

A party may move to alter or amend a judgment in a motion filed no later than 28 days 

after entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion for reconsideration under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) “‘should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 

Case 3:19-cv-00839-EMC Document 7 Filed 06/17/19 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 

there is an intervening change in the law.’” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 

1999) (citation omitted) (en banc). 

Petitioner has not shown newly discovered evidence, clear error by the Court, or an 

intervening change in the law. First, the fact that the 1983 conviction has resulted in higher bail in 

the Fresno case does not show that Petitioner is now in custody on that 1983 conviction. His 

current custody is due to the pending charges in Fresno County Superior Court rather than the 

1983 conviction. If he wishes to challenge his current custody based on the higher bail amount, he 

may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 

California under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his pretrial detention in the Fresno case. Second,

the mere possibility that the 1983 conviction might at some day in the future be used for sentence 

enhancement purposes if he ever gets convicted in the Fresno case does not satisfy the custody 

requirement for a current challenge to the 1983 conviction. If Petitioner does get convicted in the 

Fresno case and the 1983 conviction is used to enhance his sentence on that conviction in the 

Fresno case, Petitioner may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for 

the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge the sentence in the Fresno 

case. See Lackawanna Cnty. Dist. Att'y v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 401-02 (2001) (habeas petition 

challenging the validity of an expired conviction being used as a sentence enhancement for his 

current conviction is construed as an attack on the petitioner’s current sentence); Dubrin v. 

California, 720 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2013) (petitioner “has fully served the sentence he 

received for the 2000 conviction, so he is no longer ‘in custody’ on that conviction. But he is ‘in 

custody’ under the 2008 sentence, the constitutionality of which the district court may review 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a),” including claim that the 2008 sentence was enhanced by an allegedly 

invalid prior conviction). For the foregoing reasons, the motion to alter or amend the judgment is 

DENIED. Docket No. 6.

A certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). This is not a case in 

which “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 

Case 3:19-cv-00839-EMC Document 7 Filed 06/17/19 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

district court was correct in its procedural [rulings]” in the order of dismissal or in this order. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The denial of the certificate of appealability is 

without prejudice to petitioner seeking a certificate from the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit. 

Petitioner asks that the Court send him “appeal forms.” Docket No. 6 at 2. The clerk will 

send to Petitioner a copy of the Ninth Circuit’s Notice of Appeal form. Basic information about 

the process for taking an appeal can be found by clicking on the “pro se litigants” tab on the left 

side of the screen on the Ninth Circuit’s public website, www.ca9.uscourts.gov. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00839-EMC Document 7 Filed 06/17/19 Page 3 of 3