Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01039/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01039-3/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

1

 Derral Adams, not Jeanne Woodford, is the current warden at California State Prison,

where petitioner presently is confined. Accordingly, he is substituted as the respondent. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KARENGA N. BROWN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1039 RRB EFB P

vs.

DERRAL ADAMS1, Warden, ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. 2254. He challenges a 1996 Sacramento County Superior Court judgment of conviction

for possession of cocaine for sale and the enhancement of his sentence based on findings that he

previously had been convicted of felonies. On September 11, 2006, respondent moved to

dismiss this action on the grounds that petitioner failed to exhaust available state remedies and

that the petition is untimely. In that motion respondent, in a footnote, observed that petitioner

previously has challenged the conviction he now attacks in this petition. On November 9, 2006,

petitioner filed a motion to dismiss this action while he exhausted available state remedies. On

Case 2:06-cv-01039-JKS-EFB Document 19 Filed 09/13/07 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

2

December 21, 2006, petitioner opposed respondent’s motion. For the reasons explained herein,

the court finds that this action must be dismissed on the ground that it is second or successive.

Before a federal district court may entertain a second or successive petition, the petitioner

must obtain permission from the appellate court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). A petition is

second or successive if it presents claims that were or could have been adjudicated on the merits

in an original petition. Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1273 (9th Cir. 2001). The court has

compared the petition in this action to that in Brown v. Pliler, No. Civ. S 99-1858 WBS DAD P. 

In Brown, petitioner challenged the same 1996 Sacramento County conviction on the grounds

that (1) his conviction was obtained by the use of evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search

and seizure; (2) his conviction was obtained by use of evidence seized following an unlawful

arrest; (3) his conviction violated the prohibition against double jeopardy; and (4) petitioner did

not consent to the search of his mouth, which was not a valid parole search. On August 12,

2002, the court determined that petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and judgment

was entered. In the present action, petitioner claims that the trial court denied him procedural

due process by considering his prior convictions for sentencing purposes and his appellate

attorney rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance. Petitioner could have raised these

claims in the 1999 petition. He has not shown that he has obtained an order from the appellate

court authorizing this court to consider the petition. 

In light of these findings, it is ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s September 11, 2006, motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice; and

2. Petitioner’s November 9, 2006, motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice. 

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as a second or successive

petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections

Case 2:06-cv-01039-JKS-EFB Document 19 Filed 09/13/07 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

3

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158

F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: September 13, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01039-JKS-EFB Document 19 Filed 09/13/07 Page 3 of 3