Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01327/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01327-1/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 

16cv1327-JAH (MDD) 

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 

ISAIAH ISAAC WOOTEN, 

Petitioner,

v. 

W.L. MONTGOMERY, Warden, 

Respondent.

 Case No.: 16cv1327-JAH (MDD) 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 18], 

OVERRULING PETITIONER’S 

OBJECTION [Doc. No. 20], AND 

GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

[Doc. No. 14] 

BACKGROUND 

Petitioner, Isaiah Isaac Wooten, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, originally filed 

his federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on March 1, 2016 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2254. Doc. No. 1. In his Petition, Wooten argues that: (1) Petitioner’s abstract of 

judgment should be changed to exclude the 25-years to life sentence; (2) the Court should 

request a parole hearing; and (3) the Court should give 1,465 days of credits to 

Petitioner’s sentence. Id. 

Case 3:16-cv-01327-JAH-MDD Document 21 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2 

16cv1327-JAH (MDD) 

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 September 9, 2016, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus. Doc. No. 14. Respondent argues the petition is untimely, 

unexhausted, and moot. Id. Specifically, Respondent contends that the one-year statute 

of limitations imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) 

lapsed, at latest, in 2008, rendering Petitioner’s 2016 claim moot and untimely. Id. 

Respondent also posits that Petitioner failed to exhaust all state court remedies for his 

second and third claims. Id. at pgs. 3-6. Petitioner filed a response in opposition to the 

motion to dismiss on October 7, 2016. Doc. No. 16. 

On November 21, 2016, the Honorable Mitchell D. Dembin, United States 

Magistrate Judge, issued a report and recommendation (“Report”) addressing the motion 

and recommending this Court grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss. Doc. No. 18 at pgs. 

12-13. Objections to the Report were due by December 9, 2016. Id. Petitioner filed a 

letter which the Court construes as an objection to the Report on December 20, 2016.1 

Doc. No. 20. 

After careful consideration of the pleadings and relevant exhibits submitted and for 

the reasons set forth below, this Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s Report, 

OVERRULES the objection, and GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Legal Standard 

The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the court “shall 

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report...to which objection is 

made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” Id. The party objecting to the 

                                               

1

 The Court recognizes that Petitioner filed his objection past the December 9th deadline set in the 

Report, however, Petitioner explains in his objection that circumstances out of his control were 

responsible for the delay. Thus, the Court accepts Petitioner’s objection as timely. 

Case 3:16-cv-01327-JAH-MDD Document 21 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3 

16cv1327-JAH (MDD) 

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

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation bears the responsibility of specifically 

setting forth which of the magistrate judge’s findings the party contests. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b). It is well-settled, under Rule 72(b), that a district court may adopt those 

portions of a magistrate judge’s report to which no specific objection is made, provided 

they are not clearly erroneous. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

II. Analysis 

a. Count One 

i. Statute of Limitations 

Judge Dembin found a one year statute of limitations applied to Petitioner’s federal 

habeas corpus petition. Doc. No. 18. AEDPA imposes a one-year statute of limitations 

on federal prisoners for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(d). The one-year limitation applies to all habeas petitions filed by persons in 

custody pursuant to state court judgment. Id. Petitioner was sentenced to a life term in 

May 2006 by the Riverside County Superior Court for attempted murder, an 

enhancement of “25 to life” for discharging a firearm that caused great bodily injury, and 

five years for discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle. Doc. No. 18 at pgs. 2-3. 

Another “25 to life” enhancement for discharging a firearm was added on to the sentence 

on Count Two. Id. at pg. 3. Therefore, Petitioner is confined as a result of a state court 

judgment. Doc. No. 18 at pgs. 2-4. 

Pursuant to 2244(d)(1)(A), the one-year limitation period runs from the date on 

which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of 

the time for seeking such review. Id. Here, Petitioner was found guilty of attempted 

murder and the discharge of a firearm from a motor vehicle. Doc. No. 18 at pg. 2. 

Petitioner was sentenced on May 17, 2006. Id. Petitioner’s conviction became final on 

October 7, 2008, 90 days after the California Supreme Court denied direct review. Id. at 

pg. 8; Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999); U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 13. Because 

Petitioner’s conviction occurred after the enactment of AEDPA, the statute of limitations 

expired on October 7, 2009. Hasan v. Galaza, 254 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2001). The 

Case 3:16-cv-01327-JAH-MDD Document 21 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4 

16cv1327-JAH (MDD) 

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

instant action was not filed until March 1, 2016.2

 Doc. No. 1. The Court adopts the 

magistrate judge’s finding as it is not clearly erroneous. 

ii. Clerical Error 

Judge Dembin found that Petitioner’s action is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), 

which allows federal habeas review only for claims that allege a violation of the 

Constitution, federal law, or treaties. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Doc. No. 18 at pg. 9. 

Moreover, federal habeas review cannot be applied for alleged misinterpretation or 

misapplication of state law unless it involves “fundamental unfairness.” See Estelle v. 

McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Here, Petitioner’s first and second abstracts of 

judgment incorrectly show that Petitioner was a habitual sex offender. Doc. No. 18 at pg. 

10. As a result, Petitioner mistakenly believed the “habitual sex offender” charge was the 

reason for his “25 years to life” sentence. Id. at pg. 11; Doc. No. 15-1 at pg. 23. The 

record reflects the description of the offense in the abstracts was a clerical error. Doc. 

No. 18. The clerical error, however, is not responsible for Petitioner’s sentence, and the 

trial court corrected the abstract of judgment. Id. Petitioner has not met the 

“fundamental unfairness” standard and fails to raise a cognizable issue. The magistrate 

judge found that Petitioner did not allege a set, cognizable violation of the Constitution, 

federal law, or treaties. 

Petitioner filed a letter which the Court construes as an objection to the Report on 

December 20, 2016. Doc. No. 20. The letter indicates that Petitioner believes the Report 

erred only with respect to the finding that the clerical error did not impact Petitioner’s 

sentence. Id. This Court finds that after its independent review of the record, the 

magistrate judge provided a cogent analysis in addressing the clerical error. For these 

                                               

2

 In the Report, Judge Dembin noted that, in order to be eligible for statutory or equitable tolling, 

Petitioner must be timely in filing his petition, diligently pursue his rights, or show he was prevented 

from diligently pursuing his rights by extraordinary circumstances. Doc. No. 18 at pg. 9. The Court 

agrees with the Report that Petitioner failed to meet any of these requirements. 

Case 3:16-cv-01327-JAH-MDD Document 21 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5 

16cv1327-JAH (MDD) 

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

reasons, the Court overrules Petitioner’s objection. The Court adopts the magistrate 

judge’s finding as it is not clearly erroneous. 

b. Counts Two and Three 

i. Failure to Exhaust State Remedies 

Counts Two and Three alleged violations of Petitioner’s claim to an immediate 

parole hearing and 1,465 days of credits towards the sentence respectively. Doc No. 18 

at pg. 2. Judge Dembin found that Petitioner did not exhaust all available state remedies 

on these claims before pursuing the instant action. Id. at pgs. 11-12. Petitioners that seek 

federal habeas relief must first exhaust all state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). In 

order to meet this exhaustion requirement, Petitioner need either bring his claim to the 

highest possible state court or show that all possible state remedies have been exhausted. 

Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, Petitioner has not shown that 

he exhausted all possible state remedies. The record demonstrates he did not bring 

claims two and three to the California Supreme Court. Doc. No. 1 at pgs. 5-6. Thus, 

Petitioner did not meet the exhaustion requirement to seek federal habeas relief. The 

Court adopts the findings of the Report as it is not clearly erroneous. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

The Court conducted a de novo review, independently reviewing the Report and all 

relevant papers submitted by both parties, and finds the Report provides a cogent analysis 

of each of the three claims presented by Petitioner. 

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

1. The finding and conclusions of the magistrate judge presented in the Report (Doc. 

No. 18) are ADOPTED in the entirety; 

2. Petitioner’s Objection (Doc. No. 20) is OVERRULED; 

3. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED; 

// 

// 

Case 3:16-cv-01327-JAH-MDD Document 21 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6 

16cv1327-JAH (MDD) 

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

4. The Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DIMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE. 

DATED: September 27, 2017 

 

 _________________________________ 

 JOHN A. HOUSTON 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 3:16-cv-01327-JAH-MDD Document 21 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6