Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00880/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00880-5/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

MARIO REYES, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

JOE MCGRATH, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

1: 05CV 0880 LJO WMW HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 12, 17)

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. Pending before the court is Respondent’s motion for

summary dismissal. Petitioner opposes the motion.

 RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner was convicted by a jury on May 18, 2000, of first degree murder during the

commission of a robbery (Penal Code §§ 190.2(a)(17)(A)), and of personally using a firearm (Penal

Code § 12022.5). Further, Petitioner was found to have three prior prison terms within the meaning

of Penal Code section 667.5(b). On June 16, 2000, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to state prison

for life without the possibility of parole. In addition, the court sentenced Petitioner to serve a

Case 1:05-cv-00880-LJO -WMW Document 18 Filed 01/09/08 Page 1 of 5
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

determinate term of eighteen years for personally using a gun and for serving prior prison terms.

Petitioner filed a timely direct appeal, and the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth

District affirmed his conviction and sentence on May 24, 2002. Petitioner timely filed a petition for

review with the California Supreme Court, which denied review on August 14, 2002.

On September 23, 2002, Petitioner filed his first petition for writ of habeas corpus in the

United States District Court for the Eastern District. See Reyes v. McGrath, CIV F 02-6207 LJO

DLB HC. On June 20, 2007, the District Judge entered an order adopting the findings and

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and denying the petition with prejudice.

LEGAL STANDARD

JURISDICTION

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 Cir. 1997) (quoting Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 th

F.3d 751, 769 (5 Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1107, 117 S.Ct. 1114 (1997), overruled on other

th

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 after the enactment of the

AEDPA, thus it is governed by its provisions. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the

Case 1:05-cv-00880-LJO -WMW Document 18 Filed 01/09/08 Page 2 of 5
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

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

The AEDPA altered the standard of review that a federal habeas court must apply with

respect to a state prisoner's claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court. Williams v.

Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1518-23 (2000). Under the AEDPA, an application for habeas corpus will

not be granted unless the adjudication of the claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or

involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the

Supreme Court of the United States;” or “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State Court proceeding.” 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d); Lockyer v. Andrade, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173 (2003) (disapproving of the Ninth

Circuit’s approach in Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143 (9 Cir. 2000)); Williams v. Taylor, 120 th

S.Ct. 1495, 1523 (2000). “A federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court

concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly

established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.” Lockyer, at 1174 (citations omitted). “Rather,

that application must be objectively unreasonable.” Id. (citations omitted). 

While habeas corpus relief is an important instrument to assure that individuals are

constitutionally protected, Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 887, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3391-3392 (1983);

Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 1086 (1969), direct review of a criminal

conviction is the primary method for a petitioner to challenge that conviction. Brecht v.

Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 633, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1719 (1993). In addition, the state court’s factual

determinations must be presumed correct, and the federal court must accept all factual findings made

by the state court unless the petitioner can rebut “the presumption of correctness by clear and

convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 115 S.Ct. 1769

(1995); Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 116 S.Ct. 457 (1995); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380,

1388 (9 Cir. 1997). th

DISCUSSION

Although Respondent moves to dismiss this petition on several grounds, the court finds it

necessary to address only the first. Respondent contends that Petitioner’s current petition is a second

or successive petition and must be dismissed because Petitioner has not obtained the needed

Case 1:05-cv-00880-LJO -WMW Document 18 Filed 01/09/08 Page 3 of 5
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

authorization for such a petition from the Court of Appeals. The court finds this contention to be

correct.

Under AEDPA's "gatekeeping" provisions, 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 response to Respondent’s contention, Petitioner does not deny that this petition challenges

the same conviction challenged in his prior petition in this court, nor does he claim that he has

obtained the required authorization from the Court of Appeals. Rather, Petitioner presents an

argument regarding procedural default. This argument is irrelevant to the present issue and would

best be presented to the Court of Appeals in support of a request for authorization to pursue a second

or successive petition Accordingly, this court concludes that the present petition must be dismissed

as an unauthorized second or successive petition.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows:

1) that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED;

2) that this action be dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive petition; and

3) the Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this case.

Case 1:05-cv-00880-LJO -WMW Document 18 Filed 01/09/08 Page 4 of 5
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

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 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: January 9, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00880-LJO -WMW Document 18 Filed 01/09/08 Page 5 of 5