Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01513/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01513-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDY DELGADO RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01513-AWI-SAB-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING SUCCESSIVE PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

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 September 18, 2013, Petitioner challenges his 1997 conviction 

sustained in Tulare County Superior Court for: attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated 

murder; assault with a firearm; two counts of second degree robbery with a firearm; two counts 

of false imprisonment by violence; arson; attempted second degree robbery while armed with a 

firearm; and unlawful taking of a vehicle. A review of the Court’s dockets and files shows 

Petitioner has previously sought habeas relief with respect to this conviction in Rodriguez v. 

Yates, Case No. 1:09-CV-00119-AWI-SMS-HC. In that case, the petition was dismissed with 

prejudice as time-barred. Petitioner appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals, and the appeal was denied on June 16, 2011.

Case 1:13-cv-01513-AWI-SAB Document 10 Filed 11/14/13 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

2

I.

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.

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. 

///

Case 1:13-cv-01513-AWI-SAB Document 10 Filed 11/14/13 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

3

II.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus be DISMISSED as successive. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, 

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and 

Rule 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, Petitioner may file written 

objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s 

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is 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 14, 2013 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01513-AWI-SAB Document 10 Filed 11/14/13 Page 3 of 3