Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01118/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01118-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OTIS RUBE TERRY,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES YATES, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-1118 AWI DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DISMISSING INSTANT PETITION AS A

SUCCESSIVE PETITION

[Doc. 1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 21, 2006. (Court

Doc. 1.) Petitioner raises the following claims for relief: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel

when Petitioner requested a jury trial and trial counsel said trial by judge would be sufficient; (2)

ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest; (3) insufficient evidence that he

changed his address; (4) conviction obtained by double jeopardy violation; (5) conviction

obtained by violation of privilege against self-incrimination; (6) conviction obtained by the

unconstitutional failure of the prosecution to disclose to the defendant evidence favorable to the

defendant; (7) unlawful punishment under California’s Three Strikes law; and (8) cruel and

unusual punishment. Based on the foregoing, the instant petition is successive and must be

dismissed.

Because the current petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the

Case 1:06-cv-01118-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 11/27/06 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

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) apply to Petitioner's current

petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997). A federal court must dismiss a second or

successive petition that raises the same grounds as a prior petition. 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. 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, which allow a petitioner to file a second or successive petition. 

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. Pratt v. United States, 129 F.3d 54, 57 (1st Cir. 1997); Greenawalt v.

Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 794 (1997); Nunez v.

United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996).

The prior petition in Terry v. Lewis, No. CV-F-00-5773 HGB P was denied on the merits

on April 27, 2001, and judgment was entered in favor of Respondent on May 23, 2001. (Court

Docs. 20, 21.) Issues Three, Seven and Eight were presented in the prior federal action. The

remaining claims, were not presented in the prior federal petition. However, the remaining 

claims do not rely on a new rule of law applied retroactively and the alleged errors were known

to Petitioner at the time of his prior action was pending. Therefore, because the prior petition

was adjudicated on the merits, and the instant petition is a “second or successive petition” under

§ 2244(b)(3)(A), it must be dismissed, without prejudice, to re-filing if Petitioner obtains and

Case 1:06-cv-01118-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 11/27/06 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

seeks approval in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive petition. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED, without prejudice,

as a successive petition. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-

304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after

service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 22, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01118-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 11/27/06 Page 3 of 3