Owens v. United States
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered the status of a pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion after the defendant was granted a sentence reduction under the First Step Act and ordered to be released from custody. The court lifted the stay on the § 2255 motion, dismissed the § 2255 motion as moot, and dismissed the corresponding civil cases without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Lifted the stay on the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion“The stay as to Defendant’s 2255 motion is HEREBY LIFTED;” | agree with court The court lifted the stay because the defendant was ordered released from custody, rendering the pending motion moot. This is a procedural step consistent with the subsequent dismissal. |
Dismissed the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as moot“The 2255 motion is HEREBY DISMISSED AS MOOT;” | agree with court The court found the motion moot because the defendant was sentenced to time served and ordered released from custody. Since the defendant is no longer in custody, the relief sought in the § 2255 motion (vacating or correcting the sentence) is no longer available or necessary. |
Dismissed civil cases 16cv1564 and 16cv1636 without prejudice“The corresponding civil cases, 16cv1564 and 16cv1636, are HEREBY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court dismissed the civil cases without prejudice, likely because they were related to the § 2255 motion which was dismissed as moot. Dismissing without prejudice allows the parties to refile if the mootness is cured (e.g., if the defendant is reincarcerated). |
The order itself: sound — The order is a short, procedural disposition based on the factual premise that the defendant is being released from custody. It correctly identifies that a § 2255 motion challenging a sentence is moot if the defendant is no longer serving that sentence. The dismissal without prejudice of the related civil cases is a standard procedural response to mootness in this context. The reasoning is sufficient for the procedural outcome.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERIA, Case No. 97cr2546-CAB; 16cv1564- CAB; 16cv1636-CAB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER: (1) LIFTING STAY; AND 2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION 14 REGINALD OWENS, UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 2255 TO 15 Defendant. VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT A SENTENCE [Doc. No. 16 65] 17 18 On June 21, 2016, Defendant/Petitioner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to 19 vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence (the “2255 motion”). [Doc. No. 65.] On July 1, 20 2016, this Court issued an order staying the motion pending a decision by the Ninth 21 Circuit in 14-10080, United States v. Begay. [Doc. No. 67.] 22 On April 20, 2018, Defendant/Petitioner filed a motion to lift the stay in light of 23 the Supreme Court’s decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, __ S. Ct. __, 2018 WL 1800371 24 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2018). [97cr2546, Doc. No. 69.] On January 10, 2019, the Court denied 25 the motion to lift the stay. [Doc. No. 74.] 26 On July 18, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order regarding an 27 application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion filed 28 in Ninth Circuit No. 18-71013. [Doc. No. 75.] The Ninth Circuit denied the motion as 1 || unnecessary because the applicant (Petitioner Reginald Owen) already has a section 2255 2 motion pending in this Court. Jd. The Ninth Circuit further ordered the proposed section 3 }|2255 motion be filed in this action as a motion to amend the currently pending 2255 4 ||motion. Jd. That motion to amend is now filed in this action as docket no. 76. 5 On August 6, 2019, this Court issued an order lifting the stay to address the motion 6 ||to amend, and set a briefing schedule. [Doc. No. 77.] On September 12, 2019 this Court 7 ||issued an order denying the motion to amend and reinstating the stay. [Doc. No. 79.] 8 On October 21, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to reduce sentence pursuant to 18 9 ||U.S.C. §3582 (First Step Act). [Doc. No. 81.] Following further briefing by the 10 ||} government and Defendant [Doc. Nos. 87, 90-92], the Court granted Defendant’s motion 11 reduce sentence under the First Step Act. [Doc. No. 93.] Following a telephonic 12 ||hearing [Doc. No. 95], the Court issued an Amended Judgment sentencing Defendant to a 13 || term of imprisonment of time served as to all counts, concurrent [Doc. No. 96], and 14 ||issued an Abstract of Order for Defendant to be released from custody [Doc. No. 97]. 15 Given that Defendant will henceforth be released from custody, the Court 16 |} HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 17 1. The stay as to Defendant’s 2255 motion is HEREBY LIFTED; 18 2. The 2255 motion is HEREBY DISMISSED AS MOOT; 19 3. The corresponding civil cases, 16cv1564 and 16cv1636, are HEREBY 20 DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: March 25, 2020 € 23 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28