Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01549/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01549-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN CORNEALUS, Jr.,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

1

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01549-SAB-HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS 

SUCCESSIVE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 4). 

In the instant petition, Petitioner is challenging his 2000 conviction in Fresno County 

Superior Court for four counts of residential robbery and one count of first degree burglary. 

 

1 The Court notes that Petitioner has not named a proper respondent. In this case, Petitioner names “People of the 

State of California” as the Respondent. It is insufficient to name “People of the State of California” as the 

Respondent. A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer having 

custody of him as the respondent to the petition. Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. 

Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Normally, the person having custody of an incarcerated petitioner is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner 

is incarcerated because the warden has "day-to-day control over" the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 

F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992); see also, Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). 

However, the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions is also appropriate. Ortiz, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 

F.3d at 360. 

Case 1:15-cv-01549-SAB Document 7 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Petitioner previously filed a prior federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this district 

with respect to his 2000 conviction. See Cornealus v. Horel, Case No. 1:04-cv-06338-GSA-HC. 

In that action, the court denied the habeas petition on the merits on October 26, 2007. See

Cornealus v. Horel, Case No. 1:04-cv-06338-GSA-HC, ECF No. 28. On July 25, 2008, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s request for a certificate 

of appealability. See Cornealus v. Horel, Case No. 1:04-cv-06338-GSA-HC, ECF No. 37. 

I.

DISCUSSION

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

petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 

entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

A federal court must dismiss a second or successive petition that raises the same grounds 

as a prior petition. See 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 factfinder would have found the 

applicant guilty of the underlying offense. See 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.

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. See Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. 

Case 1:15-cv-01549-SAB Document 7 Filed 11/02/15 Page 2 of 4
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

denied, 117 S.Ct. 794 (1997).

Petitioner makes no showing that he has obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to 

file his successive petition. As previously stated, Petitioner previously filed a federal petition for 

writ of habeas corpus in this Court challenging his 2000 conviction for burglary and residential 

robbery. The petition was denied on the merits and the Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of 

appealability. Therefore, the instant petition is successive. As Petitioner has not obtained prior 

leave from the Ninth Circuit to file this successive petition, this Court has no jurisdiction to 

consider Petitioner's renewed application for relief under Section 2254 and must dismiss the 

petition. See Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1277. 

II.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 

district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining 

whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 

2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to 

review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which 

the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a 

proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another 

district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a 

criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of 

such person’s detention pending removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of 

appeals from–

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which 

the detention complained of arises out of process issued by 

a State court; or

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) 

only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.

Case 1:15-cv-01549-SAB Document 7 Filed 11/02/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall 

indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing 

required by paragraph (2).

If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 

appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his 

constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve 

encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must 

demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on 

his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 

determination that Petitioner should be dismissed debatable, wrong, or deserving of 

encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court hereby declines to issue a certificate 

of appealability.

III.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as successive;

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the case; and 

3. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01549-SAB Document 7 Filed 11/02/15 Page 4 of 4