Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01966/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01966-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER C. WATSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1966 MCE DAD P

vs.

B. CURRY, et al., ORDER AND

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not paid the required filing fee or filed an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) & 1915(a).

Petitioner is challenging a judgment of conviction entered in the Sacramento

County Superior Court on July 12, 1989. Petitioner alleges the following eighteen claims in a

107-page petition:

A. Ground one: USE OF “OTHER CRIMES” JURY

INSTRUCTIONS VIOLATES DUE PROCESS

B. Ground two: CALIFORNIA’S SENTENCING SCHEMES

VIOLATE THE FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH

AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

BECAUSE IT ENTRUSTS TO A JUDGE THE FINDING OF

FACT(S) ENHANCING A DEFENDANT’S PENALTY

BEYOND THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM. THE

Case 2:06-cv-01966-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 5
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

2

CONSTITUTION MANDATES THAT ANY FACT THAT

INCREASES THE PENALTY BEYOND THE STATUTORY

MAXIMUM MUST BE PLEAD AND PROVED BY A JURY.

C. Ground three: THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA NEVER

REVIEWED PETITIONER’S SENTENCE TO DETERMINE

WHETHER THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IS DISPARATE IN

COMPARISON WITH SENTENCES IMPOSED IN SIMILAR

CASES, AS IS MANDATED BY LAW.

D. Ground four: NEW EVIDENCE HAS BEEN OBTAINED

SOME YEARS AFTER THE CONVICTION WHICH

ESTABLISHES PETITIONER’S FACTUAL INNOCENCE

E. Ground five: THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGED

ONE PARTICULAR DATE FOR THE CRIME TO HAVE

OCCURRED YET ALL TESTIMONY FAILED TO SUPPORT

THAT DATE EFFECTIVELY ALTERED THE CHARGING

TERMS OF THE AMENDMENT, THUS DESTROYING

DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO BE TRIED ONLY ON THE

CHARGES SET FORTH IN THE INDICTMENT

F. Ground six: PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

G. Ground seven: TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY

INTERFERED WITH THE PRESENTATION OF THE

DEFENSE BY REFUSING TO ALLOW THE PRESENTATION

OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE ATTACKING THE

CREDIBILITY OF THE COMPLAINING WITNESS

H. Ground eight: “Evidence of a person’ general reputation with

reference to his character or a trait of his character at a relevant

time in the community in which he then resided or in a group with

which he then habitually associated is not made inadmissible by

the hearsay rule.”

I. Ground nine: TRIAL COURT’S REFUSAL TO ALLOW AS

EVIDENCE THE ENTIRE LETTER OF JULLIE [sic] TO HER

MOTHER CONSTITUTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR

J. Ground ten: TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING

PROSECUTION WITNESS, SANDRA BAKER TO GIVE

EXPERT TESTIMONY

K. Ground eleven: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF

COUNSEL

L. Ground twelve: EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO

SUSTAIN CONVICTIONS ON COUNTS ONE THROUGH

TWELVE

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01966-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 5
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

3

M. Ground thirteen: THE PROSECUTION CHARGED

PETITIONER ILLEGALLY WITH TIME BARRED CHARGES

IN WHICH THE STATUE [sic] OF LIMITATIONS HAD

EXPIRED ON THOSE CHARGES

N. Ground fourteen: THE PROSECUTION ILLEGAL [sic]

CHARGED PETITIONER WITH FELONY CHILD

MOLESTATION CHARGES INSTEAD OF MISDEMEANOR

CHILD MOLESTATION

O. Ground fifteen: PROSECUTION USED PERJURED

TESTIMONY, INTENTIONAL PERJURY, SUPPRESSING

MATERIAL EVIDENCE AND USING FALSE TESTIMONY

ALLOWING IT TO GO UNCORRECTED CAUSING

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

P. Ground sixteen: PETITIONER WAS ILLEGALLY

CONVICTED OF A WRONGFUL DATE, BY PERJURED

TESTIMONY AND SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE BY THE

PROSECUTION

Q. Ground seventeen: PETITIONER WAS WRONGFULLY

CONVICTED OF OTHER CRIMES. BASED ON

PROSECUTOR’S KNOWING PRESENTATION OF FALSE

EVIDENCE AND FAILURE TO CORRECT THE RECORD

VIOLATES PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS

(Pet. at pages electronically numbered 4-5 & 12-106.)

Petitioner previously challenged his 1989 Sacramento County judgment of

conviction in case No. CIV S-00-2674 WBS DAD P, a federal habeas proceeding commenced on

December 6, 2000. Petitioner alleged two grounds for relief in his previous petition:

Ground one: The trial court’s adverse credible finding that the

victim’s recantation was incredible was an abuse of discretion.

Ground two: The trial court abused it’s [sic] discretion by failing

to hold an evidentiary hearing; thereby dening [sic] petitioner the

chance to develop material facts.

(Pet. at 5.) Respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for failure to raise a proper federal

question was granted on February 4, 2002, and the habeas petition was summarily dismissed. 

Petitioner did not appeal the decision.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01966-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 09/11/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Petitioner’s new habeas petition is a second or successive petition. “A claim

presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was

presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). A claim that was

not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed, unless

 (A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of

constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review

by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or

 (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been

discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and

 (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light

of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear

and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no

reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the

underlying offense.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). Before a second or successive application permitted by § 2244(b)(2) can

be 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).

The claims alleged in petitioner’s second habeas petition were not presented in his

first petition. Petitioner has not obtained an order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

authorizing this court to address any of the new claims. The undersigned will therefore

recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice so that petitioner may move in the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for an order authorizing this district court to consider a second

habeas petition attacking petitioner’s 1989 conviction.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to

serve a copy of this order and findings and recommendations upon Stanley Cross, Acting Senior

Assistant Attorney General; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

Case 2:06-cv-01966-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 09/11/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file

written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: September 8, 2006.

DAD:13

wats1966.suc

Case 2:06-cv-01966-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 09/11/06 Page 5 of 5