Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01511/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01511-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Winston Hanji Park
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WINSTON HANJI PARK, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:09-cv-01511-JLT HC 

ORDER DISREGARDING AS MOOT

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO CORRECT

THE RECORD (Doc. 19)

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1, Attach. 2).

Petitioner filed his petition on January 28, 2009 in the United States District Court for the

Central District of California. (Doc. 1). On August 25, 2009, the case was transferred to this Court

from the Central District. (Doc. 10). On January 6, 2010, the Court ordered Respondent to file a

response. (Doc. 16). In that order, the Court, for jurisdictional purposes only, characterized

Petitioner’s claim as one is which “Petitioner contends that the Bureau of Prisons has wrongfully

computed his sentence by failing to credit him for eight months’ time served in state custody prior to

issuance of a federal arrest warrant and detainer.” 

On January 21, 2010, apparently fearful that the Court did not fully understand Petitioner’s

contentions, Petitioner filed the instant motion to “correct” the record, in which Petitioner explained

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:09-cv-01511-JLT Document 30 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 2
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

that he is actually seeking twelve months credit, rather than merely eight months credit. (Doc. 19, p.

1). On March 10, 2010, before the Court could respond to Petitioner’s motion to correct the record,

Respondent filed an answer to the petition addressing Petitioner’s contention that Respondent has

miscalculated his credits, thereby denying him twelve months’ credits. (Doc. 25). Thus, neither

Respondent nor the Court has misapprehended the amount of credits Petitioner is contending have

been wrongfully denied to him by Respondent. 

Because Respondent has already addressed the merits of Petitioner’s claim of wrongful denial

of twelve months’ credits, and because the Court is fully aware of the amount of credits Petitioner

claims are due to him, Petitioner’s motion to “correct” the record is moot and will be disregarded.

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Petitioner’s motion to correct the record

(Doc. 19), is DISREGARDED as MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:09-cv-01511-JLT Document 30 Filed 06/24/10 Page 2 of 2