Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00395/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00395-1/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARRISON S. JOHNSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

 )

v. )

)

 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT )

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

 )

Respondent. )

____________________________________) 

1:07-CV-00395 LJO DLB HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF SUCCESSIVE

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)

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 March 12, 2007, Petitioner challenges his 1987 conviction in Los

Angeles County of first degree murder. Petitioner concedes he has previously brought a habeas

petition in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. According to

Petitioner, that petition was denied on the merits in a judgment entered on April 14, 1992. Petitioner

states he has filed two applications with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to file a

successive petition. He states both applications to the Ninth Circuit were denied. He brings the

instant petition based on alleged newly discovered claims.

Case 1:07-cv-00395-LJO-DLB Document 5 Filed 04/10/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

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 factfinder 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). Petitioner concedes the Ninth Circuit has

denied him leave to file his successive petition attacking the conviction. That being so, this Court

has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed application for relief from that conviction under

Section 2254 and must dismiss the petition. See Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1277; Nunez, 96 F.3d at

991. 

Petitioner attempts to circumvent the restrictions on second or successive petitions by

invoking the All Writs Act. However, the instant petition challenges the “legality or duration” of

Case 1:07-cv-00395-LJO-DLB Document 5 Filed 04/10/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

Petitioner’s confinement; it is therefore a habeas petition which falls under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Badea

v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973);

Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The All Writs Act

provides that “all courts . . . may issue all writs necessary and appropriate in aid of their respective

jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). It is not itself

a source of jurisdiction. Lights of America, Inc. v. United States District Court, 130 F.3d 1369, 1370

(9 Cir. 1997). th

RECOMMENDATION

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

be DISMISSED as successive.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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 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: April 9, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00395-LJO-DLB Document 5 Filed 04/10/07 Page 3 of 3