Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06086/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06086-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sheila Clark
Respondent
Montez Salamasina Tuia Ottley
Petitioner

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONTEZ SALAMASINA TUIA OTTLEY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

SHEILA CLARK, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-6086 PJH (PR)

ORDER DENYING

OBJECTIONS AND

EXTENDING TIME

This case was opened when petitioner, a federal prisoner, filed a document headed

“Complaint, Summons to Issue in the Nature of a § 16-1901 et seq. Writ of Habeas Corpus

per District of Columbia Code.” She was convicted in the District of Hawaii and is housed

in this district.

Section 16-1901 of the District of Columbia Code applies to petitions for habeas

corpus filed by “persons within the district.” D.C. Code § 16-1901 (2007). Petitioner is

confined in this district, not the District of Columbia, so the cited code section is

inapplicable. She does, however, request release from custody, along with damages, so

the court has treated the paper as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus despite the

inapplicability of the cited code section. 

In the initial review order the negligence and damages claims were dismissed and

the habeas claims were dismissed with leave to amend. Petitioner was given thirty days to

file an amended petition containing only the habeas claims and which would “clearly set out

how, as to each ground, petitioner contends her rights were violated.” She was warned

that “her conviction, as opposed to the execution of her sentence, can be attacked only by

Case 4:06-cv-06086-PJH Document 8 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 2
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

way of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed in the district of conviction.” 

Rather than file an amendment, petitioner has filed what she calls “Plaintiff’s Verified

Notice of Objection in Response to Court’s Erroneous Dismissal and Dismissal with Leave

to Amend Filed April 9, 2007, Exhibit ‘A’.” The motion will be treated as a request for leave

to file a motion to reconsider under Civil Local Rule 7-9(a). 

In her motion petitioner claims that “an extraordinary remedy, as in writs of habeas

corpus, etc., are [sic] abolished and the procedures are now those of a regular action ...,”

so she paid the $350 filing fee for an ordinary, non-habeas, civil case. It is not true that

writs of habeas corpus have been abolished. Because she is wrong about this, she has

failed to establish grounds to file a motion to reconsider. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b) (party

moving for leave to file a motion to reconsider must specifically show: (1) that at the time of

the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was

presented to the court before entry of the interlocutory order for which the reconsideration

is sought, and that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for

reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or (2)

the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such

order; or (3) a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts which were presented

to the court before such interlocutory order).

The motion (document number 6 on the docket) is DENIED. The time for petitioner

to file a proper habeas petition is EXTENDED to July 23, 2007. If she does not do so a

final order of dismissal will be entered and the case will be closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2007.

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.06\OTTLEY086.RECON

Case 4:06-cv-06086-PJH Document 8 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 2