Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02036/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02036-1/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

- 1 - 07cv1984

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHAN KEVIN TURNER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07-CV-2036-JLS (AJB)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND (2)

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. Nos. 14 & 18.)

vs.

JAMES TILTON, Secretary,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court are Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) advising this Court to grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss, (Doc. No.

18) and Petitioner’s objections. (Doc. No. 25.) For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the

report and recommendation, GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss, and DISMISSES the

petition.

Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth the

duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. “The

district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection

is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614,

617 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). However, in the absence of

timely objection, the Court need “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the

Case 3:07-cv-02036-JLS-AJB Document 26 Filed 12/18/08 Page 1 of 3
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 - 07cv1984

record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court,

501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Petitioner appears to misconstrue the nature of the challenge to his petition, as his objections

do not address the substance of the R&R’s findings. Instead, the objections discuss at length the

claims made in the petition. Thus, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made an objection to any

specific portion of the report. Therefore, the Court need only satisfy itself that the R&R is not clearly

erroneous. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell, 501 F.2d at 206).

After a full review of the relevant materials, the Court finds that the R&R is not clearly erroneous.

However, even under a de novo review, the R&R is still plainly correct. As Magistrate Judge

Battaglia found, Petitioner’s claim is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). (R&R, at 3–4.) Section

2244(b)(3) reads, in relevant part: “Before a second or successive application permitted by this section

is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order

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

considered successive if it rases claims that could have been raised in the prior petition. See Hill v.

Alaska, 297 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2002); R&R, at 3–4; see also Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664

(1996); Babbit v. Woodford, 177 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 1999). If the relevant court of appeals has

not authorized a successive petition, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition’s

merits. Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001).

As explained in the R&R, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in 1985. (R&R, at 2.) The

district court denied this first petition in 1990, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision in 1995.

(Id.) All of Petitioner’s nine claims could have been raised in his prior petition for habeas corpus.

(Id., at 3–4.) Thus, the present action constitutes a successive petition under § 2244. (Id.)

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-02036-JLS-AJB Document 26 Filed 12/18/08 Page 2 of 3
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 - 07cv1984

As the R&R correctly concludes, Petitioner must obtain an order from the Ninth Circuit before

this Court entertains his petition. (R&R, at 4.) Without evidence of an order under § 2244(b)(3), this

Court cannot entertain Mr. Turner’s petition. Cooper, 274 F.3d at 1274. Therefore, the Court must

grant Respondent’s motion to dismss.

For these reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in full. Respondents motion to dismiss is

hereby GRANTED and the petition is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 18, 2008

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02036-JLS-AJB Document 26 Filed 12/18/08 Page 3 of 3