Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02143/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02143-0/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 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Darlene Laws, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-2143-PHX-EHC (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE EARL H. CARROLL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

BACKGROUND

Petitioner Darlene Laws has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. #1. Following a jury trial in Maricopa County Superior

Court in 2002, Petitioner was convicted of possession of a narcotic drug, possession of

marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. Doc. #1 at 1-2. The trial court sentenced

Petitioner to eight years in prison for the narcotics offense and three years each for the other

two offenses. Id.

After filing a direct appeal and a petition for post-conviction relief in state court,

Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this court on December 14, 2005.

Doc. #1 of CV 05-4102-PHX-ECV. That petition challenged the same underlying Arizona

convictions as the instant petition. Id. The petition was denied and the action was dismissed

on July 24, 2006. Doc. #14-#15 of CV 05-4102-PHX-ECV. The Ninth Circuit subsequently

Case 2:08-cv-02143-EHC Document 10 Filed 08/14/09 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 -

denied Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability on November 24, 2006. Doc. #20

of CV 05-4102-PHX-ECV. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition on November 19, 2008. Doc. #1. In lieu of an

answer, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss Second or Successive Habeas Corpus Petition

for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction on January 12, 2009. Doc. #8. Petitioner then filed

a Reply to the Respondents’ Answer on February 2, 2009. Doc. #9. 

DISCUSSION

Respondents contend in their motion to dismiss that because Petitioner has already

filed a habeas petition in this court concerning the same state court case, she must seek

permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive petition.

Respondents argue that Petitioner has not done so and therefore this court must dismiss the

pending petition. In her reply, Petitioner contends that mistakes were made in the state court

but she fails to refute any of Respondents’ contentions regarding a successive habeas

petition.

A habeas petition is “second or successive” if it raises claims that were or could have

been adjudicated on their merits in an earlier petition. Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270,

1273 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 984 (2003). A claim presented in

a successive habeas petition under § 2254 that was presented in a prior petition shall be

dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). A claim presented in a successive petition that was not

presented in a prior petition shall be dismissed unless: (1) it relies on a new rule of

constitutional law that is retroactive to cases on collateral review; or (2) the factual predicate

of the claim could not have been discovered previously and the facts, if proven, would show

that but for constitutional error no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner

guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). The dismissal of a habeas petition

for state procedural default is a merits determination for purposes of the successive petition

doctrine. Howard v. Lewis, 905 F.2d 1318, 1323 (9th Cir. 1990).

A “second or successive” § 2254 petition may be filed in the district court if a

petitioner has first obtained an order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court

Case 2:08-cv-02143-EHC Document 10 Filed 08/14/09 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 -

to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The court of appeals will not issue an

order authorizing a successive petition unless the petition meets the requirements of 28

U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2). In the absence of proper authorization, this Court lacks jurisdiction

over the merits of a “second or successive” petition. See Cooper, 274 F.3d at 1274.

Here, Petitioner’s previous petition raised ten claims for relief. Nine of the claims

were denied on procedural default grounds and the tenth was denied on the merits. Doc. #14

of CV 05-4102-PHX-ECV. In the instant petition, Petitioner raises four claims, some of

which were raised in the previous petition and some that could have been raised. Petitioner

does not argue that the claims satisfy the retroactive constitutional law or undiscoverable

factual predicate exceptions in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). Moreover, Petitioner has not

presented an authorization order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit to file a successive petition. Consequently, the court is without jurisdiction to

consider the petition. The court will therefore recommend that the Petition and this action

be dismissed without prejudice. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

That the Motion to Dismiss Second or Successive Habeas Corpus Petition for Lack

of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. #8) be GRANTED; and 

That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. #1)

be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a

response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report

and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by

the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

Case 2:08-cv-02143-EHC Document 10 Filed 08/14/09 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 -

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order of judgement entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

DATED this 13th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02143-EHC Document 10 Filed 08/14/09 Page 4 of 4