Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02802/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02802-0/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

1

 Since filing his application for habeas relief, petitioner has been transferred to Corcoran

State Prison. Accordingly, the warden of that facility, Derral G. Adams, is hereby substituted as

the respondent. See Rule 2(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings; Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEREK TATE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-2802 MCE EFB P

vs.

DERRAL G. ADAMS,1 Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a prisoner without counsel, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court has reviewed the petition as required by Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, and finds that the petition appears to be second or

successive. Thus, petitioner must show either that the petition is not second or successive or that

he has obtained permission from the appellate court to proceed. 

Before a federal district court may entertain a second or successive petition, the petitioner

must obtain permission from the appellate court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). A petition is

second or successive if it challenges a judgment challenged in a prior petition and it presents

Case 2:07-cv-02802-MCE -EFB Document 7 Filed 02/26/08 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

2

claims that were or could have been adjudicated on the merits in an original petition. Cooper v.

Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1273 (9th Cir. 2001). In the present action, petitioner challenges his

December 8, 2000, conviction of burglary and resisting arrest. As grounds for relief, he asserts

the following: (1) California’s determinate sentencing law is unconstitutional as applied to him

in this case; and, (2) the trial court violated his rights by excluding him from a hearing on

whether counsel competently could represent petitioner. The court has examined its records, and

finds that petitioner challenged the same conviction in case number Civ. S-02-2337 MCE GGH

P. In that action, petitioner alleged that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it permitted

introduction of prior bad acts evidence against petitioner; (2) the trial court abused its discretion

when it denied petitioner’s motion to testify; (3) counsel was ineffective by failing to investigate

and challenge the evidence of prior bad acts; (4) the trial court improperly granted petitioner’s

motion to represent himself; (5) the trial court improperly denied petitioner’s motion for a

continuance; and (6) the prosecution committed misconduct by withholding materially

exculpatory evidence. Although petitioner did not in his original petition present the grounds he

presents here, he could have presented them. Therefore, the court finds that the petition in this

action is second or successive. See Cooper, 274 F.3d at 1273 (“Because Cooper was aware of

the factual predicate of this claim long ago and could have raised the claim in his first petition,

his claim is “second or successive.”). Petitioner offers no evidence that the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals has granted him leave to file this petition.

Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that petitioner shall, within 30 days of the date this

order is served, demonstrate either that this petition is not second or successive or submit

evidence that the appellate court has given him permission to proceed on the petition. 

////

////

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-02802-MCE -EFB Document 7 Filed 02/26/08 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

3

Petitioner’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed upon the ground that petitioner seeks to proceed on an unauthorized second or

successive petition. 

Dated: February 26, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02802-MCE -EFB Document 7 Filed 02/26/08 Page 3 of 3