Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01631/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01631-0/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 MARlO A. NEWSOME, 

11 

CASE NO. 16cv 1631-WQH-JMA 

Plaintiff, ORDER 

12 

13 

16 

v. 

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUPERIOR 

COURT, 

Defendant. 

The matter before the Court is Petitioner's letter (ECF No.6), which the Court 

construes as a Motion to Reconsider the June 30, 2016 Order (ECF No.3). 17 

On June 24, 2016, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a 

18 

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that the 

19 

restitution fine imposed following his conviction in San Diego County Superior Court 

20 

Case No. CRI 08096 violates state and federal ex post facto principles because the fine 

21 

was first imposed after he was retried following the reversal on appeal of his first trial. 

22 

On June 30, 2016, the Court issued an Order dismissing the Petitioner for Writ 

23 

of Habeas Corpus without prejudice. (ECF No.3). The Court concluded that 

24 

"[b ]ecause Petitioner challenges only his restitution fine, this Court lacks jurisdiction 25 

over the Petition." [d. at 2. Citing to Baily v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 979-80 (9th Cir. 

26 

2010), the Court explained that a state prisoner, even one who is physically in custody, 27 

who presents a challenge to a restitution order does not allege that "he is in custody in 

28 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States" as that term is 

- I - l6cv 1631· WQH·JMA 

Case 3:16-cv-01631-WQH-JMA Document 7 Filed 07/18/16 Page 1 of 2
1 used in § 22S4(a). The Court noted that Petitioner had already challenged the 

2 constitutionality of his conviction in San Diego Superior Court Case No. CR.I 0896 via 

3 a petitioner for writ of habeas corpus filed with this Court on August 1,2005. 

4 On July 15, 2016, Petitioner filed a letter asking that the Court reconsider its 

5 decision. The Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of habeas Corpus and all of the 

6 related filings and concludes that the Court does not have jurisdiction in this action. 

7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider (ECF No.6) 

8 is denied. The judgement in this case was entered on July 1,2016. (ECF No. 4). 

9 Petitioner is cautioned that under the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(l )(A), 

:: P,"Ho"" h" 30 d,y, to fil. , noHu of ,pp~~ 

12 

13 

DATED: 7,//7fl ~ 

14 

IS 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 2 -

WILLIAM Q. HAYES 

United States District Judge 

l 6cv 163 I· WQH·JMI\ 

Case 3:16-cv-01631-WQH-JMA Document 7 Filed 07/18/16 Page 2 of 2