Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01697/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01697-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMOND MIMMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

 )

v. )

)

 )

DARRYL ADAMS, )

 )

Respondent. )

____________________________________) 

1:09-cv-01697-AWI-JLT HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)

ORDER DIRECTING OBJECTIONS TO BE

FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

In the petition filed on September 28, 2009, Petitioner challenges his June 16, 2006

conviction in Kings County Superior Court for battery upon a non-confined person while in state

prison (“gassing”). Petitioner was sentenced to a prison term of two years. (Doc. 1, p. 1). 

A review of the Court’s dockets and files, as well as Petitioner’s own allegations, show

Petitioner has previously sought habeas relief with respect to this conviction. In case number 1:06- 1

cv-0923-VRW, a petition challenging the same conviction was denied on the merits and judgement

The Court takes judicial notice of the docket in case no. 1:02-cv-05251-REC-BAK HC. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b);

1

United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9 Cir.1993); Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1

th

(N.D.Cal.1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699, (9 Cir.) (Judicial notice may be taken of court records).

th

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:09-cv-01697-AWI-JLT Document 10 Filed 03/11/10 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

entered on May 6, 2009. The Court’s records indicate that, on July 1, 2009, the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s appeal of that denial “[b]ecause the appeal is

so insubstantial as to not warrant further review.”

DISCUSSION

A federal court must dismiss a second or successive petition that raises the same grounds as a

prior petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). The Court must also dismiss a second or successive petition

raising a new ground unless the petitioner can show that 1) the claim rests on a new, retroactive,

constitutional right or 2) the factual basis of the claim was not previously discoverable through due

diligence, and these new facts establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for the

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). However, it is not the district court that decides

whether a second or successive petition meets these requirements, which allow a petitioner to file a

second or successive petition. 

Section 2244 (b)(3)(A) provides: "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." In other words, Petitioner must

obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before he can file a second or successive petition in district court. 

See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-657 (1996). This Court must dismiss any second or

successive petition unless the Court of Appeals has given Petitioner leave to file the petition because

a district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a second or successive petition. Pratt v. United

States, 129 F.3d 54, 57 (1st Cir. 1997); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997),

cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 794 (1997); Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996).

Because the current petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) apply to Petitioner's current

petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997). The Court has reviewed the petition in this

case and the petition in case no. 1:06-cv-0923-VRW, and has concluded that they challenge the same

conviction and raise the same issues. Thus, the instant petition is a second or successive petition

within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:09-cv-01697-AWI-JLT Document 10 Filed 03/11/10 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

Petitioner has made no showing that he has obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file

his successive petition attacking his 2006 Kings County conviction, and, indeed, such a showing

seems unlikely given the Ninth Circuit’s summary dismissal of Petitioner’s appeal as “insubstantial.” 

That being so, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed application for relief

from that conviction under Section 2254 and should dismiss the petition. See Greenawalt, 105 F.3d

at 1277; Nunez, 96 F.3d at 991. If Petitioner desires to proceed in bringing this petition for writ of

habeas corpus, he should first be required to file for leave to do so with the Ninth Circuit. See 28

U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3).

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus

(Doc. 1), be DISMISSED as a second or successive petition.

This Findings and Recommendations is submitted to the United States District Court Judge

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

twenty (20) 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 Recommendations.” 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: March 10, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 3

Case 1:09-cv-01697-AWI-JLT Document 10 Filed 03/11/10 Page 3 of 3