Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01504/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01504-2/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

The Court takes judicial notice of the dockets in case no. 1:98-CV-6047 OWW HGB P. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); 1

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

(N.D.Cal.1978), 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNEY RAMEY, )

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

v. )

)

 )

MIKE C. KRAMER, et al., )

 )

Respondents. )

____________________________________) 

1:07-CV-01504 LJO GSA 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 October 16, 2007, Petitioner challenges his 1998 convictions in

Fresno County Superior Court of two counts of second degree burglary with use of a knife for which

he received a total indeterminate sentence of 66 years to life. 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

1:98-CV-6047 OWW HGB P, the petition was dismissed with prejudice for violating the statute of

Case 1:07-cv-01504-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 11/01/07 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

limitations. 

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).

Case 1:07-cv-01504-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 11/01/07 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

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 (plus three days for mailing) 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: November 1, 2007 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01504-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 11/01/07 Page 3 of 3