Johnson v. Allison

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID LEONARD JOHNSON, Case No.: 19cv1673-LAB (KSC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. RECONSIDERATION 14 MARION SPEARMAN, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner David Johnson, a prisoner in state custody, filed his petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. After receiving briefing, Magistrate Judge Karen 19 Crawford issued her report and recommendation (the “R&R”), which recommended 20 denying the petition without prejudice. Johnson did not object to the R&R. The Court on 21 June 8, 2020 adopted the R&R and denied the petition without prejudice, and judgment 22 was entered June 9, 2020. 23 Johnson a motion dated February 5, 2021, which the Court accepted for filing by 24 discrepancy order. The Court construed it as a motion for relief from judgment based on 25 excusable neglect, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). The motion did not ask the Court for any 26 particular relief. Nevertheless, it is clear Johnson wants relief from the dismissal, based on 27 delays he argues were beyond his control. 28 / / / 1 The Court, in furtherance of its obligation to confirm its jurisdiction, see Steel Co. 2 || v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 98 (1998), ordered Respondent to file a response 3 addressing the possible mootness of Johnson’s claims and request. Johnson was invited to 4 || file a response addressing possible mootness, but did not do so. 5 Respondent has now filed the required response, showing that after this Court 6 || dismissed his petition, the state court resentenced him. The motion for reconsideration 1s 7 DENIED AS MOOT. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 | Dated: March 31, 2021 (ted Jf: (Bus 11 Hon. Lafry Alan Burns United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28