Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00207/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00207-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY DEANE WARD, No. 2:15-CV-0207-GEB-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

M.D. BITER,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondent’s motion to

dismiss (Doc. 11). 

Petitioner is serving an indeterminate life term without the possibility of parole

following a conviction for first degree murder. Petitioner’s conviction and sentence were

affirmed on direct appeal and the California Supreme Court denied review. Petitioner then filed

the following post-conviction actions in state court:

First Petition Sacramento County Superior Court

Filed April 10, 2011

Denied May 13, 2011

/ / /

1

Case 2:15-cv-00207-GEB-CMK Document 27 Filed 01/28/16 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

Second Petition California Supreme Court

Filed February 21, 2012

Denied May 23, 2012

Third Petition California Court of Appeal

Filed July 6, 2013

Denied July 18, 2013

Fourth Petition California Supreme Court

Filed August 20, 2014

Denied October 29, 2014

Petitioner also filed a prior federal habeas corpus petition in this court challenging the same

conviction and sentence. See Ward v. Bitter, 2:12-CV-0047-KJS. That petition was denied on

the merits on March 21, 2013, and reconsideration was denied on April 23, 2013. Thereafter, the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and

the Supreme Court denied certiorari. 

In his motion to dismiss, respondent argues, among other things, that the instant

petition must be dismissed as a second or successive petition filed without first obtaining

permission to do so from the Ninth Circuit. The court agrees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1),

“[a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application . . . that was presented

in a prior application shall be dismissed.” Under § 2244(b)(2), “[a] claim presented in a second

or successive habeas corpus application . . . that was not presented in a prior application shall be

dismissed. . . .” unless one of two circumstances exist. Either the newly raised claim must rely

on a new rule of constitutional law, or the factual predicate of the new claim could not have been

discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence and the new claim, if proven, establishes

actual innocence. See id. Before a second or successive petition can be filed in the district court,

however, the petitioner must first obtain leave of the Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b)(3). In the absence of proper authorization from the Court of Appeals, the district court

lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition and must dismiss it. See Cooper v.

Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). 

/ / /

2

Case 2:15-cv-00207-GEB-CMK Document 27 Filed 01/28/16 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

In the instant petition, petitioner claims that his appellate counsel was ineffective. 

This claim was not raised in the prior federal petition adjudicated in 2013 and petitioner has not

obtained leave from the Ninth Circuit to present it now in the context of a second or successive 

federal petition. While petitioner argues in his opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss that

this second federal petition should be allowed, that is a determination for the Ninth Circuit not

this court. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that respondent’s motion to

dismiss (Doc. 11) be granted and that this action be dismissed.

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 14 days

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

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 28, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:15-cv-00207-GEB-CMK Document 27 Filed 01/28/16 Page 3 of 3