(HC) Louthian v. United States

E.D. California

(HC) Louthian v. United States

DecidedJanuary 13, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-00510

StatusUnknown

This text of (HC) Louthian v. United States ((HC) Louthian v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(HC) Louthian v. United States, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 RAY D. LOUTHIAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00510-SAB-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 13 v.

14 UNITED STATES, 15 Respondent.

16 17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 wherein he asserts that he is actually innocent of his sentence as a 19 career offender because his prior South Carolina convictions are no longer qualifying predicates 20 for United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.2 enhancement in light of Descamps v. United 21 States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), and Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016). Respondent has 22 moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that Petitioner fails to satisfy the requirements to bring a 23 § 2241 habeas petition under the escape hatch of § 2255(e). (ECF No. 6.) Petitioner filed an 24 opposition, (ECF No. 9), but Respondent did not file a reply. 25 The Court finds that a reply from Respondent addressing issues raised in the opposition 26 would assist the Court in this matter. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 27 1. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, Respondent SHALL FILE a reply to the opposition addressing, inter alia, Petitioner’s contention that only his 1 sentence for Count 6 was reduced and no resentencing occurred with respect to the other 2 counts, and whether Descamps and Mathis “effect[ed] a material change in the applicable 3 law,” “creating a previously unavailable legal basis for petitioner’s claim.” Harrison v. 4 Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 960, 961 (9th Cir. 2008); and 5 2. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of Respondent’s reply, Petitioner MAY 6 FILE a sur-response. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA (e_ g | Dated: _ January 13, 2023 __ 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 RAY D. LOUTHIAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00510-SAB-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 13 v.

14 UNITED STATES, 15 Respondent.

16 17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 wherein he asserts that he is actually innocent of his sentence as a 19 career offender because his prior South Carolina convictions are no longer qualifying predicates 20 for United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.2 enhancement in light of Descamps v. United 21 States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), and Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016). Respondent has 22 moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that Petitioner fails to satisfy the requirements to bring a 23 § 2241 habeas petition under the escape hatch of § 2255(e). (ECF No. 6.) Petitioner filed an 24 opposition, (ECF No. 9), but Respondent did not file a reply. 25 The Court finds that a reply from Respondent addressing issues raised in the opposition 26 would assist the Court in this matter. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 27 1. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, Respondent SHALL FILE a reply to the opposition addressing, inter alia, Petitioner’s contention that only his 1 sentence for Count 6 was reduced and no resentencing occurred with respect to the other 2 counts, and whether Descamps and Mathis “effect[ed] a material change in the applicable 3 law,” “creating a previously unavailable legal basis for petitioner’s claim.” Harrison v. 4 Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 960, 961 (9th Cir. 2008); and 5 2. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of Respondent’s reply, Petitioner MAY 6 FILE a sur-response. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA (e_ g | Dated: _ January 13, 2023 __ 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC) Louthian v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-louthian-v-united-states-caed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack