Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01304/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01304-4/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

TODD AARON BARKER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

TONY MALFIE, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-01304-AWI-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 15)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 10)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

CLOSE FILE

 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 2, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that Respondent's motion to dismiss based on the

ground that the instant petition is a second or successive petition

be GRANTED, and the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED, without prejudice. These Findings and Recommendations

were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections

were to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service

of that order. On May 17, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the

Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:05-cv-01304-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 07/07/06 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that

the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are supported

by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner contends in his

objections that his sentence was illegally enhanced, and the recent

Supreme Court case of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004),

provides Petitioner with relief. Congress has mandated that: 

[a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas

corpus application under [28 USCS § 2254] that was

presented in a prior application shall be dismissed . .

.[a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas

corpus application under [28 USCS § 2254] that was not

presented in a prior application shall be dismissed

unless ... 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.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Only the Ninth Circuit can grant Petitioner

permission to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Thus, this court has no authority to

allow Petitioner to proceed with a second or successive habeas

corpus petition. Regardless, the Ninth Circuit held in Cook v.

United States, 386 F.3d 949 (9th Cir.2004),that Blakely does not

apply retroactively to convictions that became final prior to the

publication of that decision. Id. at 950.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 2, 2006, are

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Respondent's motion to dismiss based on the ground that

the instant petition is a second or successive petition, filed

April 5, 2006, is GRANTED;

Case 1:05-cv-01304-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 07/07/06 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

3. The instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

DISMISSED, without prejudice; and,

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01304-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 07/07/06 Page 3 of 3