Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05206/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05206-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RITCHIE G. SNYDER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

A. A. LA MARQUE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 04-5206 OWW WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF PETITION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this court. On March 5, 2004, this court entered findings and

recommendations that the petition be dismissed as a successive petition pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 2244(b). On April 9, 2004, Petitioner filed a motion to hold this case in abeyance to

obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive petition. On April 20, 2004,

the court entered an order granting Petitioner’s motion and requiring Petitioner to provide the

court with a copy of his Motion for Leave to Authorization to File a Second or Successive

Habeas Corpus Petition filed in the Ninth Circuit. Petitioner complied with that order. On

Case 1:04-cv-05206-OWW -WMW Document 15 Filed 04/06/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

March 15, 2006, the court ordered Petitioner to inform the court of the outcome of that

motion, by providing this court with a copy of the order of the Ninth Circuit resolving his

motion. On March 29, 2006, Petitioner responded to the court’s order, stating that the Ninth

Circuit had denied his request to file a second or successive petition, and that he had lost his

copy of the order. Petitioner informs the court that he has written to the Ninth Circuit 

requesting an additional copy of that order.

Petitioner filed the present petition on January 30, 2004. Petitioner challenges his

September 1998 conviction in the Kern County Superior Court of two counts of robbery,

assault with a deadly weapon, three prior convictions for serious felonies, and five prior

prison terms. Petitioner previously filed a habeas corpus petition on March 19, 2001 in case

number CV F 01-5328 OWW LJO HC in which he challenged the above 1998 conviction. 

That petition was denied on February 20, 2003, and judgment was entered on February 21,

2003.

Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a state court if the custody is in violation of the Constitution or

laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams

v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1504 fn.7 (2000). Petitioner asserts that he suffered violations of

his rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. In addition, the conviction

challenged arises out of the Kern County Superior Court, which is located within the

jurisdiction of this court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 2241(d). Accordingly, the court has

jurisdiction over the action. 

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), which applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed after

its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2063 (1997), cert. denied,

522 U.S. 1008, 118 S.Ct. 586 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9

th Cir. 1997)

(quoting Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751, 769 (5th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1107,

Case 1:04-cv-05206-OWW -WMW Document 15 Filed 04/06/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

117 S.Ct. 1114 (1997), overruled on other grounds by Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117

S.Ct. 2059 (1997) (holding AEDPA only applicable to cases filed after statute's enactment). 

The instant petition was filed on January 30, 2004, after the enactment of the AEDPA, thus it

is governed by its provisions. 

Under the gatekeeping" provisions of the AEDPA, an applicant seeking to file a

second or successive petition must obtain from the appropriate court of appeals an order

authorizing the district court to consider the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 

Section 2244(b)(2) provides that a claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus

application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be

dismissed unless-- 

A court of appeals may grant such an order only upon a showing that: 

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional

law made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that

was previously unavailable; or 

(B)(I) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been

discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence;

and 

 (ii) the facts underling the claim, if proven and viewed in the light

of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by

clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error,

no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty

of the underlying offense.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B). In the present case, Petitioner has informed the court that the

Ninth Circuit has denied his request to file a second or successive petition. Therefore, under

Section 2244(b)(2), this court must dismiss Petitioner’s present petition. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this petition for writ

of habeas corpus be dismissed as a second or successive petition and that the Clerk of the

Court be directed to enter judgment for Respondent.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

Case 1:04-cv-05206-OWW -WMW Document 15 Filed 04/06/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05206-OWW -WMW Document 15 Filed 04/06/06 Page 4 of 4