Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00895/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00895-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVIN D. MANN,

Petitioner,

v.

M. C. KRAMER,

Respondent.

 /

1: 06 CV 00895 WMW HC

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RE

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 15]

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 2254. Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. Pending before the court is Respondent’s motion

to dismiss.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 13, 1994, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and a sentencing

enhancement was found true. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to an indeterminate state prison

term of twenty-five years to life, plus four years for the enhancement.

Case 1:06-cv-00895-WMW Document 22 Filed 01/31/08 Page 1 of 6
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

Petitioner filed a direct appeal, and on July 6, 1995, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth

Appellate District (“Court of Appeal”) affirmed the judgment. Petitioner filed a petition for review

with the California Supreme Court, which denied the petition on October 26, 1995.

Petitioner subsequently filed six pro se collateral challenges to his conviction:

First Petition

August 9, 2000: Petition for post-conviction relief filed in the California Supreme Court

November 29, 2000: Petition denied

Second Petition

September 8, 2000: Petition for post-conviction relief filed in the Court of Appeal

September 18, 2000: Petition denied

Third Petition

July 2, 2001: Petition for post-conviction relief filed in the Kings County Superior Court

July 27, 2001: Petition denied

Fourth Petition

August 20, 2004: Petition for post-conviction relief filed in the Kings County Superior Court

September 16, 2004: Petition denied

Fifth Petition

October 25, 2004: Petition for post-conviction relief filed in the Court of Appeal

November 9, 2004: Petition denied

Sixth Petition

August 2, 2005: Petition for post-conviction relief filed in the California Supreme Court

May 24, 2006: Petition denied

On October 17, 1996, Petitioner filed a prior habeas corpus petition in this court challenging

the same conviction challenged in the present action. Mann v. Henry, CIV F 96-6164 OWW HGB

P. On June 14, 1997, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the petition be denied on the merits. 

The District Judge adopted the findings and recommendations on September 17, 1997. Petitioner

appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and on April 19, 1999, the

Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment. Petitioner filed the present action on July 14, 2006.

Case 1:06-cv-00895-WMW Document 22 Filed 01/31/08 Page 2 of 6
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

LEGAL STANDARD

Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in custody pursuant

to the judgment of a state court if the custody is in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of

the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct.

1495, 1504 fn.7 (2000). Petitioner asserts that he suffered violations of his rights as guaranteed by

the United States Constitution. In addition, the conviction challenged arises out of the Kings 

County Superior Court, which is located within the jurisdiction of this court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a);

2241(d). Accordingly, the court has jurisdiction over the action. 

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996 (“AEDPA”), which applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed after its enactment. 

Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2063 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1008, 118 S.Ct.

586 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9 Cir. 1997) (quoting Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 th

F.3d 751, 769 (5 Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1107, 117 S.Ct. 1114 (1997), overruled on other

th

grounds by Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059 (1997) (holding AEDPA only applicable

to cases filed after statute's enactment). The instant petition was filed after the enactment of the

AEDPA, thus it is governed by its provisions. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

The AEDPA altered the standard of review that a federal habeas court must apply with

respect to a state prisoner's claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court. Williams v.

Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1518-23 (2000). Under the AEDPA, an application for habeas corpus will

not be granted unless the adjudication of the claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or

involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the

Supreme Court of the United States;” or “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State Court proceeding.” 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d); Lockyer v. Andrade, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173 (2003) (disapproving of the Ninth

Case 1:06-cv-00895-WMW Document 22 Filed 01/31/08 Page 3 of 6
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

Circuit’s approach in Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143 (9 Cir. 2000)); Williams v. Taylor, 120 th

S.Ct. 1495, 1523 (2000). “A federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court

concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly

established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.” Lockyer, at 1174 (citations omitted). “Rather,

that application must be objectively unreasonable.” Id. (citations omitted). 

While habeas corpus relief is an important instrument to assure that individuals are

constitutionally protected, Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 887, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3391-3392 (1983);

Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 1086 (1969), direct review of a criminal

conviction is the primary method for a petitioner to challenge that conviction. Brecht v.

Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 633, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1719 (1993). In addition, the state court’s factual

determinations must be presumed correct, and the federal court must accept all factual findings made

by the state court unless the petitioner can rebut “the presumption of correctness by clear and

convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 115 S.Ct. 1769

(1995); Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 116 S.Ct. 457 (1995); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380,

1388 (9 Cir. 1997). th

DISCUSSION

Respondent moves to dismiss this petition on the grounds that it is successive and it is

untimely. Petitioner opposes the motion. Because the court finds Respondent’s first ground for

dismissal to be meritorious, it finds it unnecessary to address the second.

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

Petition if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the

Petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 5

of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases state that “an alleged failure to exhaust state remedies may be

raised by the Attorney General, thus avoiding the necessity of a formal answer as to that ground.” 

The Ninth Circuit has referred to a Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss as a request for the Court to

dismiss under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. See, e.g., O’Bremski v. Maass, 915

F.2d 418, 420 (1991); White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602-03 (9 Cir. 1989); Hillery v. Pulley, 533 th

F.Supp. 1189, 1194 & n.12 (E.D. Cal. 1982). Based on the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and

Case 1:06-cv-00895-WMW Document 22 Filed 01/31/08 Page 4 of 6
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

case law, the Court will review Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to its authority under Rule

4.

Under AEDPA's "gatekeeping" provisions, an applicant seeking to file a second or successive

petition must obtain from the appropriate court of appeals an order authorizing the district court to

consider the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Section 2244(b)(2) provides that a claim

presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not

presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless the court of appeals finds that: 

(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 underling the claim, if proven and viewed in the light of the

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

convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable

fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying

offense.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B). 

In this case, as set forth above, Petitioner filed a prior federal habeas corpus petition

challenging the same conviction and sentence he seeks to challenge now. See Mann v. Henry, CIV F

96-6164 OWW HGB Therefore, the present petition is a second or successive petition under Section

2244(b)(2), and Petitioner cannot proceed on this petition without the requisite authorization from the

Ninth Circuit. Petitioner, however, has not provided this court with any evidence that he has obtained

this authorization. Indeed, he does not claim to have done so. Accordingly, this case must be

dismissed.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED:

2) This petition is DISMISSED as an unauthorized second or successive petition;

3) The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

Case 1:06-cv-00895-WMW Document 22 Filed 01/31/08 Page 5 of 6
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

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00895-WMW Document 22 Filed 01/31/08 Page 6 of 6