(HC) Louthian v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAY D. LOUTHIAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00510-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 13 v. UNITED STATES, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 wherein he asserts that he is actually innocent of his sentence as a career offender because his prior South Carolina convictions are no longer qualifying predicates for United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.2 enhancement in light of Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), and Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016). Respondent has moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that Petitioner fails to satisfy the requirements to bring a § 2241 habeas petition under the escape hatch of § 2255(e). (ECF No. 6.) Petitioner filed an 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 would assist the Court in this matter. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 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.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA (e_ g | Dated: _ January 13, 2023 __ 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE