‘Vexatious litigant’ prevails in his 9th Circuit appeal

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reversed the U.S. District Court for the NMI’s decision not to entertain the merits of “vexatious litigant” John Sablan Pangelinan’s motion that challenged his detention in Seattle, Washington.

Three judges in the 9th Circuit ruled that, upon review of the record, the opening brief, and the May 19, 2008, letter from the U.S. Attorney, “the court summarily reverses and remands this appeal to the district court.”

The judges cited a previous Ninth Circuit decision stating that an individual subject to supervised release is in custody for purposes of habeas corpus petitions.

In a two-page memorandum, the judges denied all pending motions being moot. No further discussion was indicated.

The judges said the panel finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.

According to court records, in September 2006 the federal court convicted Pangelinan of two counts of obstruction of a court order following a jury trial in connection with his letters to the editor published in local newspapers.

In January 2007, the federal court sentenced Pangelinan to one year in jail. In addition, he was sentenced to supervised release for one year following the completion of his jail term.

Pangelinan was then detained at the Federal Bureau of Prisons near Seattle, Washington. He appealed his conviction to the 9th Circuit.

While his scheduled release from jail was Sept. 16, 2007, he remained physically incarcerated because he refused to execute certain documents relating to the payments of fines and supervised release as mandated by the federal court in its sentencing order.

On Oct. 11, 2007, the 9th Circuit reversed the conviction on one count and affirmed the conviction on the second count.

While still in federal prison on Oct. 25, 2007 Pangelinan challenged his detention by filing his petition to vacate, set aside, or correct his criminal sentence.

Four days later, U.S. District Court for the NMI designated judge David A. Wiseman denied as moot Pangelinan’s motion because he was no longer “in custody” for “reasons directly related to his criminal sentence.”

On Nov. 23, 2007, Pangelinan filed as second petition. At the time, he remained incarcerated at the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

On Dec. 3, 2007, Wiseman dismissed the second appeal on the grounds that this was a second or successive petition.

Pangelinan, through court-appointed counsel Steven P. Pixley, appealed to the 9th Circuit Wiseman’s decisions. Pixley asked the court to reverse the judge’s dismissal of his client’s habeas corpus petitions.

The lawyer raised the issue whether the federal court erred when it declined to entertain the merits of Pangelinan’s motion on grounds that he was no longer in custody.

The other issue was whether the federal court erred when it construed and dismissed Pangelinan’s second appeal as an unauthorized or successive motion.

On Jan. 28, 2008, the 9th Circuit granted Pangelinan’s certificate of appealability with respect to the issues he presented.

Pangelinan was ultimately released from federal prison in January 2008.

In Pangelinan’s opening brief filed in April 2008, Pixley asserted that his client was in custody when the federal court denied his first habeas corpus petition.

Pixley said his client’s active prison term may have expired when he filed his petition but he remained incarcerated as a direct result of the criminal sentence imposed by the federal court.

“Indeed, Pangelinan remained physically incarcerated and he was subject to supervised release pursuant to the terms and conditions of the District Court sentence,” the lawyer said, adding that his client was therefore a “prisoner in custody” within the meaning of the habeas corpus statute.

With respect to the second petition, Pixley said the district court should not have held that Pangelinan’s Nov. 23, 2007, filing was a second or successive habeas corpus petition.

“A challenge to the District Court’s previous dismissal should not be deemed a ‘second or successive’ petition,” Pixley added.