Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00868/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00868-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOWELL FINLEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

 )

 )

v. )

)

 )

DOMINGO URIBE, JR., Warden, )

 )

Respondent. )

____________________________________) 

1:10-CV-00868 GSA HC 

ORDER DISMISSING SUCCESSIVE

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE

ORDER DECLINING ISSUANCE OF

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has returned a consent option form indicating consent to the

jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

In the instant petition filed on May 17, 2010, Petitioner challenges his 1998 convictions in

Kern County Superior Court. A review of the Court’s dockets and files shows Petitioner has

previously sought habeas relief with respect to this conviction. In case no. 1:00-CV-5521 DLB P, 1

the petition was denied on the merits. 

The Court takes judicial notice of the docket in case no. 1:00-CV-5521 DLB P. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States

1

v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9 Cir.1993); Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D.Cal.1978),

th

aff’d, 645 F.2d 699, (9 Cir.) (Judicial notice may be taken of court records).

th

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:10-cv-00868-GSA Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 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

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 makes no showing that he has

obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit 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. If Petitioner desires to proceed in bringing this petition for writ of

habeas corpus, he must file for leave to do so with the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3).

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:10-cv-00868-GSA Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 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

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a

district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. MillerEl v. Cockrell, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue

a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a 

district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court 

of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the 

validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial 

a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the 

validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings.

 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 

appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from–

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 

court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which 

specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability

“if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or

that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.” Miller-El, 123 S.Ct. at 1034; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the

petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than

the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 123 S.Ct. at

1040.

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s

determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or

deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLINES to issue a

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 3

Case 1:10-cv-00868-GSA Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 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

certificate of appealability.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as successive; 

2) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the case; and

3) The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 1, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 4

Case 1:10-cv-00868-GSA Document 6 Filed 06/02/10 Page 4 of 4