Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01844/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01844-1/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

KENNETH RUSSELL BORK, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01844-DAD-SAB-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

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.

I.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 

habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 

to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” 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 

Case 1:16-cv-01844-DAD-SAB Document 8 Filed 01/05/17 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

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 the 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. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007).

In the instant petition, Petitioner challenges his 1999 convictions in the Tulare County 

Superior Court for receiving stolen property and being a felon in possession of a firearm. (ECF 

No. 1 at 1).1Petitioner previously filed federal habeas petitions in this Court challenging the 

same convictions. See Bork v. Scribner, No. 1:02-cv-06135-REC-DLB (denied on the merits); 

Bork v. Sherman, No. 1:16-cv-00635-DAD-SAB (dismissed as unauthorized successive 

petition).

2

In the instant petition, Petitioner acknowledges that he previously filed a habeas 

petition in this Court. (ECF No. 1 at 17).

The Court finds that the instant petition is “second or successive” under § 2244(b). 

Petitioner makes no showing that he has obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file this 

petition. As Petitioner has not obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file this successive 

petition, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s renewed application for relief 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and must dismiss the petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. at 157.

///

///

///

 

1

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

2 The Court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 

(9th Cir. 1980).

Case 1:16-cv-01844-DAD-SAB Document 8 Filed 01/05/17 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, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus be DISMISSED as successive. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 

Judge assigned to the case, 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 service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner 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 Recommendation.” The assigned 

District Judge 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 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2017 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01844-DAD-SAB Document 8 Filed 01/05/17 Page 3 of 3