Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00728/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00728-0/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

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 08cv1043

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Ramon Del Rio, Civil No. 11cv728 DMS (PCL)

Petitioner,

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS

(Doc. 17.) 

vs.

Matthew Cate, Secretary,

Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

In 1977, Petitioner Ramon del Rio was convicted of two counts of first degree murder, for which

he is currently serving an indeterminate life sentence. (Doc. 1, at 15, 68.) On April 6, 2011, Petitioner

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) The Petition contains three

claims: 1) ineffective assistance of counsel; 2) due process violation as Petitioner has not been able to

obtain DNA testing of evidence introduced at trial; and 3) prosecutorial misconduct. (Doc. 1, at 1-3.)

Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition on the ground that the Petition is a successive petition

for which Petitioner has not obtained circuit court approval for filing as required under 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b)(3)(A). (Doc. 17-1, at 5.) Petitioner filed numerous appeals and petitioned the state and federal

courts for writs of habeas corpus, including in this Court, case no. 93-1834 IEG (RBB). (Doc. 17-1, at

3.) For the following reason, the Court recommends GRANTING Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.

Case 3:11-cv-00728-DMS-PCL Document 22 Filed 10/27/11 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

DISCUSSION

This Petition is governed by the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

of 1996 (“AEDPA”). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997). As amended by AEDPA, 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244 provides, in pertinent part: 

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.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

As described by the Supreme Court, Section 2244(b)(3) acts as a gatekeeping system for second

petitions in which the habeas petitioner must obtain leave from the court of appeals before filing the

second habeas petition in the district court. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 663 (1996). If the petitioner

fails to obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals before filing his successive habeas petition in

the district court, the district court must dismiss the habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. Burton v.

Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007). 

Here, Petitioner already filed a federal habeas petition in his case in 1993. Returning to federal

district court with a successive petition, Petitioner has failed to obtain circuit court approval first before

filing his successive habeas petition in this Court. Thus, this Court should dismiss the Petition for lack

of jurisdiction and should GRANT Respondent’s Motion.

CONCLUSION

The Court submits this Report and Recommendation to United States District Judge Dana

Sabraw under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 72.1(c)(1)(c) of the United States District

Court for the Southern District of California. For the reason outlined above, IT IS HEREBY

RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an order: (1) approving and adopting this Report and

Recommendation, and (2) directing that the Petition be dismissed.

IT IS ORDERED that no later than November 10, 2011, any party to this action may file written

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections

to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court and

served on all parties no later than November 18, 2011. The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the

Case 3:11-cv-00728-DMS-PCL Document 22 Filed 10/27/11 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

Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 27, 2011

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:11-cv-00728-DMS-PCL Document 22 Filed 10/27/11 Page 3 of 3