Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Taylor v. Davis

United States District Court, C.D. California

September 9, 2014

GARY TAYLOR, Petitioner,
v.
RON DAVIS, Warden, Respondent.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

S. JAMES OTERO, District Judge.

I.

INTRODUCTION

On April 24, 2014, Petitioner Gary Taylor ("Petitioner"), a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Docket Entry No. 1). On June 17, 2014, the Court issued an Order To Show Cause ("OSC") that required Petitioner to file a Supplemental Statement explaining why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Docket Entry No. 10). On July 8, 2014, Petitioner filed a Supplemental Statement (Docket Entry No. 11). After reviewing the Petition and the Supplemental Statement, the Court has decided to DISMISS the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

II.

BACKGROUND

On March 23, 2009, Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of continuous sexual abuse, in violation of California Penal Code ("P.C.") § 288.5(a), and three counts of committing a lewd act upon a child, in violation of P.C. § 288(a). (See Lodgment 1, at 1.) On May 1, 2009, the Ventura County Superior Court sentenced Petitioner to twenty-two years in state prison. (See id.) The court also ordered Petitioner to pay $158, 760 in restitution, which would be allocated accordingly: (1) $90, 720 was to be paid to Hannah T. (one of Petitioner's victims), and (2) $68, 040 was to be paid to Terri Taylor (Hannah T.'s mother and Petitioner's ex-wife).[1] (See id. at 2; Pet. 11.) Petitioner did not appeal the trial court's judgment.[2]

On May 18, 2012, Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal, (see Lodgment 2), which was denied on July 9, 2012.[3] (See Lodgment 4.) On May 24, 2013, Petitioner filed another petition in the California Court of Appeal, (see Lodgment 5), which was denied on June 18, 2013. (See Lodgment 6.) On July 30, 2013, Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the California Supreme Court, (see Lodgment 7), which was denied on October 16, 2013. (See Lodgment 8.)

On April 24, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant Petition.

III.

PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS

The Petition raises three grounds for habeas relief:

1. Ground One: The trial court's imposition of $158, 760 in restitution violates the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment.
2. Ground Two: The restitution order violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment[4] because it is ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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