Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02373/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02373-1/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

 At the time the petition was filed in the Central District of California, Western Division,

Petitioner was confined at California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California, which is located

in Kern County, and part of the Eastern District. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Under 28 U.S.C. 2241(d),

jurisdiction for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 exists in either the district in which the Petitioner is

confined or in the district in which the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

Therefore, the Central District Court should have transferred the action to either the Southern District,

where his conviction took place, or the Eastern District, where Petitioner was confined. However,

K:\Common\Lewis\Orders To Be Signed\06cv2373.JLS R&R 01.15.08.wpd 06cv2373

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD SIMMONS, Civil No. 06-2373 JLS (PCL)

Petitioner,

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION RE MOTION

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR

HABEAS CORPUS

vs.

JAMES E. TILTON, Secretary,

Respondent.

Ronald Simmons (“Simmons”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). He challenges his

San Diego Superior Court conviction in case number SCD121940. Respondent has filed a

Motion to Dismiss [doc. no. 20]. After a thorough review of the Petition, Respondent’s motion

to dismiss, Petitioner’s opposition and all supporting documents, this Court recommends that

Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED. 

PRIOR FEDERAL HABEAS PETITIONS DENIED ON THE MERITS

On April 1, 2000, Petitioner filed in a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United

District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, Case No. 02cv2679 GLT

(FMO).1

 In that petition, Simmons challenged his convictions in San Diego Superior Court Case

Case 3:06-cv-02373-JLS-PCL Document 29 Filed 01/15/08 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

“jurisdiction” in the context of 28 U.S.C. § 2241, does not refer to subject-matter jurisdiction. See

Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 fn. 7 (2005). Rather, “jurisdiction”under section 2241(d) is

more akin to personal jurisdiction or venue and “[o]bjections to the filing of petitions based on those

grounds can be waived by the Government.” See id. at 452 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Accordingly,

because Respondent did not assert a defense of lack of personal jurisdiction or venue, it is waived. The

Central District, therefore was not precluded from deciding the case on the merits. See id. at 451. 

K:\Common\Lewis\Orders To Be Signed\06cv2373.JLS R&R 01.15.08.wpd 06cv2373

No. SCD121940. In the Petition, Simmons argued that defense counsel was ineffective in failing

to cross examine witnesses on identification issues, and failing to object to a single photo showup and subsequent identifications. (See Resp’t Lodgment No. 5, Pet. in 02cv2679 at 16-23, 24-

34.) On September 30, 2004, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued a Report and

Recommendation, stating that the petition should be dismissed on the merits. (See Resp’t

Lodgment No. 1.) On November 8, 2004, the District Court adopted the Report and

Recommendation and ordered judgment be entered dismissing the action with prejudice. (See

Resp’t Lodgment Nos. 3 & 4.) Simmons did not appeal that determination. (See Central

District, Western Division Docket in Case No. 02cv2679 GLT (FMO)). 

INSTANT PETITION BARRED BY GATEKEEPER PROVISION

Simmons is now seeking to challenge the same state court convictions (case no.

SCD21940) he challenged in his prior federal habeas petition. (See Pet. at 4.) He also raises

the same grounds for relief as he did in his petition before the Central District. (See Pet. at 2-3,

5.) Unless Simmons shows he has obtained an order from the appropriate court of appeals

authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive petition, the petition may not be

filed in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Here, there is no indication the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Simmons leave to file a successive petition. Therefore his

Petition must be dismissed. Id. 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Because there is no indication Simmons has obtained permission from the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals to file a successive petition, this Court cannot consider his Petition.

Accordingly, the Court recommends the Court GRANT Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss

without prejudice to Simmons filing a petition in this court if he obtains the necessary order from

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Case 3:06-cv-02373-JLS-PCL Document 29 Filed 01/15/08 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

K:\Common\Lewis\Orders To Be Signed\06cv2373.JLS R&R 01.15.08.wpd 06cv2373

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

L. Sammartino under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule HC.2 of the United States

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

HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) approving and adopting this

Report and Recommendation, and (2) directing that Judgment be entered dismissing the Petition.

IT IS ORDERED that no later than February 8, 2008, 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 February 22, 2008. 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 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).

DATED: January 15, 2008

 

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-02373-JLS-PCL Document 29 Filed 01/15/08 Page 3 of 3