Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kanwaljit Singh Hundal v. J. Tim Ochoa

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 16, 2013

KANWALJIT SINGH HUNDAL, PETITIONER,
v.
J. TIM OCHOA, WARDEN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

ORDER

Petitioner, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 14, 2012, the petition was dismissed after the undersigned adopted in full the magistrate judge's February 7, 2012 findings and recommendations recommending that respondent's motion to dismiss the petition be granted. Pending before the court is petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

DISCUSSION

On December 20, 2006, petitioner was convicted of six counts of lewd conduct involving a minor under 14. Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. B (Doc. No. 13-1 at 92-93). On January 29, 2007, he was sentenced to six years imprisonment.

In the petition filed on September 6, 2011, petitioner claimed that he was scheduled to be released on parole in January 2012 and that, upon release, he would be subject to the modified sex offender registration requirements of Jessica's Law, a 2006 voter-approved initiative requiring registered sex offenders (1) to reside more than 2,000 feet away from schools and from parks where children regularly gather, and (2) to be monitored by a global positioning system ("GPS") device. See Cal. Penal Code §§ 3003.5(b) (2000-foot radius), 3000.07 (GPS use required during parole), 3004(b) (GPS use required "for life"). Petitioner argued that because his conviction date precedes the effective date of this statute, the court should find that he is not subject to its provisions and that holding otherwise would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.

In the February 7, 2012 findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge determined that, because petitioner had yet to be released on parole, his claims were not ripe. That is, while petitioner remained incarcerated, his claim that the respondent intended to attach any restrictions on his parole was speculative.

In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner contends that he was paroled on August 28, 2012 and that he is now being subjected to the conditions raised in his September 6, 2011 petition.

On review, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for reconsideration is denied. Should petitioner seek review of the merits of his claims, he is directed to initiate a separate suit.

20130116

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.