Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00485/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00485-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sheila A. Clark
Respondent
Astarte Davis-Rice
Petitioner
Harley G. Lappin
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

As petitioner is incarcerated within the Northern District of California and her

petition challenges the execution of her federal sentence, venue is proper in this court. See

Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249-50 (9th Cir. 1989). 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASTARTE DAVIS-RICE,

Petitioner,

 v.

SHEILA A. CLARK, Warden, et

al., 

Respondents. ____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-485 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING

AS MOOT APPLICATIONS FOR

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; DENYING MOTION

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Docket Nos. 2. 4, 8)

On January 24, 2007, petitioner, a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at the

Federal Correctional Institution Dublin and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1

 In addition to her petition, she has

filed two separate applications for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as well as a motion for

default judgment.

BACKGROUND

In 1991, in the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands, petitioner was

convicted of charges brought in four separate cases. On January 31, 2002, she was sentenced

in those four cases, with each sentence ordered to run consecutively to the others, for a total

of 15 years in federal prison. In one of the cases, Case No. 88-403, petitioner received a

Case 3:07-cv-00485-MMC Document 10 Filed 05/29/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

In 2003, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,

petitioner pled guilty to a charge of escape from a federal prison and was sentenced thereon

to a term of two years, with such term to run consecutively to the prison terms imposed in

petitioner’s prior cases.

2

sentence of 15 months and was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $297,246.78. 

Thereafter, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, on December 13, 2994, 

determined the restitution fine in Case No. 88-403 should be reduced by $27,964.00, and

vacated the judgment in part. On October 10, 1995, in accordance with the decision of the

Court of Appeals, the District Court for the Virgin Islands issued an “Order Amending

Judgment and Commitment,” in which it reduced the amount of the restitution to

$269,282.78. 

DISCUSSION

Petitioner claims that because the “Order Amending Judgment and Commitment” in

Case No. 88-403 does not mention the 15-month prison term, but rather addresses only the

amount of the restitution, petitioner’s 15-month sentence for that conviction was thereby

vacated. Petitioner asserts she already has served those 15 months and seeks to have this

Court order the Federal Bureau of Prisons to credit the 15 months against a separate prison

sentence imposed in 2003.2

As its title states, the October 10, 1995 order is an order “Amending” the judgment; it

is not an “Amended Judgment.” In other words, the Order was not intended to wholly

replace the prior judgment. Nothing in the October 10, 1005 Order states or suggests that the

15-month sentence was to be vacated or otherwise changed in any way. 

The authority cited by petitioner does not support her argument that the October 10,

1995 Order nonetheless had the effect of vacating her 15-month sentence in Case No. 88-

403. Petitioner’s argument is based on the requirement, provided in Rule 58 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, that “every judgment and amended judgment must be set forth on a

separate document.” This rule applies to “Civil” not criminal cases. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1

(“These rules govern the procedure in the United States district courts in all suits of a civil

nature. . . .”). Petitioner cites to no such requirement with respect to criminal cases. In

Case 3:07-cv-00485-MMC Document 10 Filed 05/29/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3 In addition to “Sheila A. Clark, Warden, F.C.I. Dublin,” petitioner has named as a

respondent “Harley G. Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons.” The petition as to said

latter respondent is subject to dismissal for the additional reason that he is not a proper party

to the action. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004) (holding only proper

respondent to habeas petition brought by federal prisoner is prisoner’s “immediate

custodian,” i.e., “the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held”).

3

particular, petitioner cites no authority, and this Court is aware of none, that when an order

 amending a criminal judgment does not expressly reiterate a portion of the original sentence,

the portion not reiterated is thereby vacated. In the absence of such authority, there is no

basis for granting petitioner the relief she seeks. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby

DISMISSED.3

In light of petitioner’s payment of the filing fee, the applications for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis are hereby DENIED as moot.

As respondent has not been served, petitioner’s motion for a default judgment is

hereby DENIED.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 2, 4, and 8.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 29, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00485-MMC Document 10 Filed 05/29/07 Page 3 of 3