Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00677/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00677-0/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

16-cv-00677-JLB

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

David Wise,

Petitioner,

v.

Sheriff Gore, et al.,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16-cv-00677-JLB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS; DISMISSING THE 

PETITION; DENYING MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

[ECF Nos. 9, 17]

INTRODUCTION

Upon consent of the parties, this case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge 

Jill L. Burkhardt to conduct all proceedings and order entry of final judgment in accordance 

with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. 

On April 11, 2016, David Wise (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed his first 

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). On 

May 10, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued a scheduling order, setting July 15, 

2016 as the deadline for Respondent to file any motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 6.) On May 

12, 2016, Petitioner filed an ex parte motion for summary judgment, seeking an order 

allowing for Petitioner’s release from San Diego County Jail prior to his scheduled release

date of June 3, 2016. (ECF No. 9.) However, Petitioner is no longer incarcerated as 

reflected in the notice of change of address he filed with the district court on June 13, 2016. 

(ECF No. 10.)

Case 3:16-cv-00677-JLB Document 21 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 6
2

16-cv-00677-JLB

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

On July 8, 2016, the Court issued a revised scheduling order that extended the 

deadline for Respondent to file any motion to dismiss to August 15, 2016. (ECF No. 16.) 

Respondent timely filed a motion to dismiss the Petition. (ECF No. 17.) The deadline for 

Petitioner to respond in opposition to the motion to dismiss was September 14, 2016. (ECF 

No. 16.) Petitioner did not file a response to Respondent’s motion. 

After a careful review of the parties’ submissions, and for reasons set forth below, 

this Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss, DISMISSES the Petition without 

prejudice, DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and DENIES a 

certificate of appealability.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner and his wife were jointly prosecuted for a number of white collar crimes. 

Ultimately, both entered guilty pleas pursuant to negotiated plea agreements. Petitioner 

was sentenced to a prison term of almost eight years, but he was permitted to serve that 

term in local custody in the county jail. He completed that sentence some time ago, and 

thus, is no longer subject to loss of liberty as a result of this judgment.

Petitioner now seeks federal habeas corpus relief, but he expressly makes no 

challenge to his convictions. Instead, he complains that, as a jail prisoner, he was treated 

less favorably than other prisoners committed to serve their time in state prisons. In

general, he complains that: (1) prison detainees were eligible for more credits against their

sentences, so that a prisoner in prison might complete his sentence before those, like 

Petitioner, who served their time in county jail; (2) prison detainees enjoyed some better 

quality-of-life conditions, such as allegedly better medical and dental care; and (3) those 

in state prison could qualify for alternative confinement programs that were not available 

to jail prisoners. Petitioner contends that these disparities violate his rights to equal 

protection of the laws or constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

ANALYSIS

Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED because the Court 

construes Petitioner David Wise’s failure to file an opposition in response to the motion as 

Case 3:16-cv-00677-JLB Document 21 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 6
3

16-cv-00677-JLB

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

constituting consent to the granting of the motion to dismiss under Civil Local Rule 

7.1.f.3.c and because none of the claims are cognizable in a federal habeas corpus petition.

Petitioner was ordered to and failed to file an opposition to Respondent’s motion to 

dismiss. (ECF No. 16.) Pursuant to the Court’s July 8, 2016 scheduling order, the deadline 

for Petitioner to file his opposition to the motion was September 14, 2016. (Id.) In that 

same scheduling order, the Court warned Petitioner that “Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 

7.1.f.3.c, if an opposing party fails to file opposition papers in the time and manner 

required by the Court, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of the 

motion to dismiss. (Id. (emphasis in original).) To date, Petitioner has not submitted an 

opposition brief to Respondent’s motion to dismiss, nor has he requested an extension of 

time in which to do so.

District courts have broad discretion to enact and apply local rules, including 

dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local rules. See generally Ghazali v. 

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an unopposed motion to dismiss 

under local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to oppose as consent to granting the 

motion); Cano v. Hughes, No. 13cv2335 H WVG, 2015 WL 2365687, at *4 (S.D. Cal. 

May 18, 2015) (same). Before dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, 

district courts “weigh several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 

defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the 

availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. 

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). That a plaintiff is proceeding pro se does 

not excuse his failure to follow the rules of procedure that govern other litigants. King v. 

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of 

procedure that govern other litigants.”).

Here, Respondent attached a proof of service to its motion to dismiss, signaling that 

Petitioner was served by First-Class Mail with the motion at his address of record on or 

about August 15, 2016. (ECF No. 17 at 3.) Petitioner, who is not incarcerated, was 

Case 3:16-cv-00677-JLB Document 21 Filed 11/07/16 Page 3 of 6
4

16-cv-00677-JLB

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

provided adequate time to prepare a response. More than six weeks have passed since

Petitioner’s September 14, 2016 deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss and still 

Petitioner has not filed an opposition. Thus, the Court finds that “the public’s interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation,” “the court’s need to manage its docket,” and “the risk 

of prejudice to the defendant” all weigh in favor of granting the motion to dismiss. See 

Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. Accordingly, the majority of the Ghazali factors weigh in favor of 

dismissal.

The “availability of less drastic sanctions” also weighs in favor of dismissal because 

Respondent has shown that none of Petitioner’s claims are cognizable in this federal habeas 

corpus case. (See ECF No. 17.) In the operative petition, Petitioner raises certain claims 

relating to the conditions of confinement during the time period in which he was 

incarcerated. Such claims must be brought exclusively in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Nettles v. Grounds.

1

 Nettles, 830 F.3d 

922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016). Petitioner’s remaining claims challenge only Petitioner’s 

eligibility for an alternative custody program and conduct credits towards completion of 

his sentence. He expressly pleads, “I’m not challenging my conviction.” (ECF No. 4.) 

Because Petitioner already completed his sentence, these claims concerning his sentence

are moot.

Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate some remaining consequence that permits 

this action to continue2and he has failed to do so. In fact, there is nothing in the record to 

 

1 The Court notes that the Petition is not amenable to a simple conversion from a § 2254 habeas corpus 

petition to a civil rights claim under § 1983 because, as discussed herein, some of Petitioner’s claims—

those addressing conduct credits—appear to fall within the habeas core, such that those claims could not 

be part of a § 1983 action. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936.

2

See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 284 (4th Cir. 2008) (absent a presumption of collateral 

consequences, the prisoner bears the burden of demonstrating collateral consequences sufficient to meet 

Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement); DeFoy v. McCullough, 393 F.3d 439, 442 n.3 (3d Cir. 

2005) (“It is a petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that collateral consequences exist to avoid having a 

case dismissed as moot.”); United States v. Clark, 193 F.3d 845, 847 (5th Cir. 1999) (“The petitioner has 

the burden to establish [some concrete and continuing] injury, and if he fails to satisfy his burden we 

must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”).

Case 3:16-cv-00677-JLB Document 21 Filed 11/07/16 Page 4 of 6
5

16-cv-00677-JLB

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

show that some remaining consequence exists with respect to Petitioner’s completed 

sentence to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III, § 2 of the United 

States Constitution. Therefore, each of the Ghazali factors weighs in favor of granting of 

the motion to dismiss under Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c.

Dismissal is also appropriate because, as explained in the Court’s analysis above of 

the last Ghazali factor, Respondent has met its burden to show that none of Petitioner’s 

claims are cognizable in a federal habeas corpus petition. Petitioner challenges the 

conditions of his confinement and his eligibility for a reduction or alternative program to 

in his now completed sentence. Petitioner’s conditions of confinement claims must be 

brought in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nettles, 830 F.3d at 927. And Petitioner’s 

eligibility claims concerning his sentence are moot. Therefore, Respondent’s motion to 

dismiss is GRANTED.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, a district

court “must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse

to the applicant.” A state prisoner may not appeal the denial of a Section 2254 habeas 

petition unless he obtains a certificate of appealability from a district or circuit judge.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); see also United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1269-70 (9th 

Cir. 1997) (holding that district courts retain authority to issue certificates of appealability

under AEDPA). A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). It must 

appear that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the petitioner’s

constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

The Court concludes that jurists of reason could not find it debatable whether this Court

was correct in dismissing the Petition. The Court denies a certificate of appealability.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-00677-JLB Document 21 Filed 11/07/16 Page 5 of 6
6

16-cv-00677-JLB

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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED, and the Petition 

(ECF No. 4) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing an amended 

petition for writ of habeas corpus in this case and/or filing a separate action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 concerning the conditions of confinement claims. Any amended petition 

for writ of habeas corpus must be filed by November 21, 2016;

2. Petitioner’s Ex Parte Motion for Summary Judgment and Order to Show 

Cause (ECF No. 9) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot;3

3. Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability; and

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 7, 2016

 

3 The motion (seeking early release) is moot as Petitioner is no longer in custody and as the Petition fails 

to state a cognizable federal habeas corpus claim.

Case 3:16-cv-00677-JLB Document 21 Filed 11/07/16 Page 6 of 6