Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06239/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06239-3/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIUS LEE TURNER, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-6239 JSW (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pro se by Petitioner pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutional validity of his state conviction. 

Petitioner's earlier habeas petition was filed under Case No. 3:92-cv-00541 BAC (PR). 

That petition was denied on the merits by this Court on July 5, 1994. Petitioner now

files a separate habeas petition raising what appears to be the same claims as those raised

in his earlier petition as well as claims against this Court for failing to inform Petitioner

of the outcome of the earlier case and because he claims that his original petition was

“never heard on the merits.” 

Although Petitioner attaches a docket sheet from the earlier habeas case provided

to him by this Court in support of that proposition, he apparently misunderstands the

docket entry regarding the decision, believing that the case was dismissed based on the

denial of in forma pauperis status. However, the docket sheet actually reflects that the

case was decided on the merits, although it is unclear from the docket sheet alone the

reasoning behind Judge Caulfield’s grant of summary judgment on behalf of

Case 3:06-cv-06239-JSW Document 10 Filed 05/21/07 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 2

Respondent. The docket sheet also states that in forma pauperis status was denied

simultaneously, but does not reflect that the petition was denied on that basis. The

docket sheet reflects that Respondent had earlier filed a response to the petition and that

the Court ordered Respondent to address therein whether the petition was subject to

procedural default based on whether the state court’s denial of the petition was on

adequate and independent state grounds. 

Petitioner further alleges that he paroled in June of 1994 and when the district

court decided the case, he was not notified of the decision. The attached docket sheet

lists an address for Petitioner at California State Prison-Solano and does not reflect a

change of address form submitted by Petitioner upon his parole from prison, which may

be the reason that Petitioner did not receive notification of the Court’s decision.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") was

signed into law on April 24, 1996. Under AEDPA, a district court must dismiss claims

presented in a second or successive habeas petition challenging the same conviction and

sentence that were raised in a previous petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1); Babbitt v.

Woodford, 177 F.3d 744, 745-46 (9th Cir. 1999). Additionally, a district court must

dismiss any new claims raised in a successive petition unless the petitioner received an

order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Section 2244 applies when the first petition was denied on the

grounds of procedural default. Henderson v. Lampert, 396 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th

Cir.2005) (denial of petition on procedural default grounds constitutes disposition on

merits).

Here, the instant petition challenges the same conviction and sentence as the

previous petition decided by this Court in 1994. Petitioner has not presented an order

from the court of appeals authorizing the Court to consider these claims. Accordingly,

the Court must dismiss the instant petition in its entirety. Petitioner is free to seek such

an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See, 28 U.S.C. §

Case 3:06-cv-06239-JSW Document 10 Filed 05/21/07 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 3

2244(b)(3)(A).

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as

a second and successive petition. The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment in

this matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 21, 2007

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06239-JSW Document 10 Filed 05/21/07 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIUS L. TURNER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PEOPLE OF STATE OF CA et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV06-06239 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 21, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Julius Turner

E-49063

P.O. Box 5005

Calipatria, CA 92233

Dated: May 21, 2007

Richard W. Winking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-06239-JSW Document 10 Filed 05/21/07 Page 4 of 4