United States of America v. Holoaki Sione Mateialona

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
HOLOAKI SIONE MATEIALONA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-15875
D.C. Nos. 1:18-cv-00101-HG
1:08-cr-00059-HG-3
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Holoaki Sione Mateialona appeals pro se from the district
court’s order finding that Mateialona withdrew his post-judgment petition and
closing his case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Mateialona contends that the district court erred by construing his petition
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Mateialona’s
request for oral argument is denied.
FILED
FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15875
for judicial notice of adjudicative facts as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and closing
his case, without conducting a hearing under Federal Rule of Evidence 201. The
court did not err. Mateialona’s petition, although styled as a request for judicial
notice, challenged the authority of the prosecutors in his criminal case to prosecute
him. This claim sounds in habeas. See El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036,
1046 (9th Cir. 2016). The district court thus properly informed Mateialona that it
intended to construe this petition as a section 2255 motion, gave Mateialona the
proper advisements, and provided him an opportunity to respond. See Castro v.
United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003). When Mateialona responded that he did
not wish to challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence, the court properly
concluded that the petition had been withdrawn. See El-Shaddai, 833 F.3d at 1046
(“When a prisoner challenges the fact or duration of his confinement, the sole
federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”); United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237
F.3d 1077, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2001) (where petitioner’s claims are cognizable under
section 2255, he may not circumvent the limitations imposed by that statute by
seeking another form of relief). The petition having been withdrawn, Mateialona
was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --