Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00592/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00592-0/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

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

In this action, Petitioner’s challenges his 1989 conviction in the Fresno County Superior Court 

of first degree murder with special circumstances and his subsequent sentence of 27-years-to-life. 

(Doc. 1). However, he has challenged this same conviction in several other actions without having 

first obtained permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to do so. Thus, the Court 

recommends the petition be DISMISSED

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner has previously filed two petitions in this Court challenging the same conviction. In 

case number 1:93-cv-05604-LJO, this Court denied the petition on its merits and entered judgment. 

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. Thereafter, in case number 1:13-

cv-00543-SAB, the Court dismissed his second federal habeas petition challenging his 1989 

conviction, as successive. 

WILLIS RANDOLPH,

 Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00592-JLT

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO 

ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS AS SECOND AND SUCCESSIVE

ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE 

FILED WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

Case 1:16-cv-00592-AWI-JLT Document 5 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

II. DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Review of Petition.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition 

if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is 

not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The 

Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after 

an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.2001).

B. Successive Petitions. [§ 2254]

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 fact-finder 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 that allow a petitioner to file a second or successive petition, but rather 

the Ninth Circuit. 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 

Case 1:16-cv-00592-AWI-JLT Document 5 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 3
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

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 this successive petition attacking his conviction. That being so, this Court has 

no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed application for relief from that conviction under § 

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 first file for 

leave to do so with the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3).

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign a United States 

District judge to this case.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be 

DISMISSED as a second and successive petition.

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

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 21 

days 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 Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within 10 days (plus three 

days if served by mail) after service of the objections. 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: April 29, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00592-AWI-JLT Document 5 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 3