Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00094/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00094-2/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

17-cv-0094-AJB-WVG

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM FRED WOOTEN,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Respondents.

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

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

(Doc. No. 17)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

obtained or shown in the record. Because the evidence now shows Wooten was not in 

Case 3:17-cv-00094-AJB-WVG Document 22 Filed 01/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17-cv-0094-AJB-WVG

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

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

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

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

(9th Cir. 1994). Thus, 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 Wooten’s petition for lack of 

jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00094-AJB-WVG Document 22 Filed 01/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2