Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02174/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02174-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KHARY B. WATSON,

Petitioner,

v.

PAUL BRAZELTON, et al.,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 14cv2174-AJB (BLM)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S

MOTION TO DISMISS HABEAS

PETITION AS AN UNAUTHORIZED

SUCCESSIVE FEDERAL PETITION [ECF.

NO. 8]

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge Anthony

J. Battaglia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Civil Local Rules 72.1(d) and HC.2 of the United

States District Court for the Southern District of California. On September 8, 2014, Petitioner

Khary Watson, a state prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced

these habeas corpus proceedings pursuant to 28. U.S.C. § 2254.1

 ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). Petitioner

challenges his conviction for first degree murder. Id. at 2. Currently before the Court is

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition as an unauthorized successive federal petition. ECF

No. 8 (“MTD”). Petitioner failed to file an opposition. See Docket; see also ECF No. 6 at 2

1

In determining the filing date of a petition, pro se prisoners generally are entitled to the benefit of the

“mailbox rule,” which dictates that the statutory filing date is the date a document was presented to prison authorities

for mailing to the court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988); Stillman v. LaMarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1201

(9th Cir. 2003). Here, Petitioner presented his petition to prison authorities on September 8, 2014. See Lopez v.

Felker, 536 F.Supp.2d 1154, 1155 n.1 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (filing date is date on which petition was signed).

14CV2174-AJB(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-02174-AJB-BLM Document 10 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 7
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

(stating that Petitioner shall file his opposition no later than December 4, 2014).

The Court has considered the Petition, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, and all of the

supporting documents submitted by the parties. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the California Court of Appeal's opinion in People v.

Watson, Appeal No. D056848, slip op. (Cal. Ct. of App. July 20, 2011). People v. Watson, 2011

WL 2858163, *1-2 (Cal. Ct. of App. July 20, 2011). This Court presumes the state court's factual

determinations to be correct absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 28 U.S.C. §

2254(e)(1); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003); see also Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20,

35 (1992) (holding findings of historical fact, including inferences properly drawn from such facts,

are entitled to statutory presumption of correctness)

In October 1994, Patricia Lopez was fatally shot during a street robbery. The

murder remained unsolved until after 2006, when the police received an

anonymous phone call which led them to information concerning the persons

involved in the crimes. The authorities identified the suspects as two males

(defendant and Tyrone Katrel Lynch) and a female (Komoa Greene). Lynch

eventually identified defendant as the shooter, entered into a plea agreement, and

agreed to testify.

In addition to Lynch, several eyewitnesses to the shooting testified at trial, including Lopez's friend (Barbara Nickerson) and Nickerson's son (Paul). Nickerson

was with Lopez at the time of the shooting. At about 10:00 p.m. on October 1,

1994, the two women were walking to Lopez's apartment when a man came out

of the bushes, pointed a gun at Nickerson, and told Nickerson to remove her fanny

pack. Nickerson unbuckled and dropped her fanny pack, and the man picked it up

from the ground. Nickerson called out to Paul (who was at Lopez's apartment), and

Paul came outside. Meanwhile, Lopez was running towards her apartment. The

man ran after Lopez, grabbed her, and shot her. While this was occurring, another

man was standing in the street waiting for the man with the gun. After Lopez was

shot, the other man said, “ ‘Come on, man. We have to go .’ “ The two men ran

off together. Lopez died at the scene.

After receiving the anonymous phone call and commencing their investigation, the

authorities made contact with Lynch, who was living in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Beginning in February 2008, the police and Lynch had several phone conversations

and in-person interviews to discuss the incident. In August 2008, Lynch was

arrested for the murder. On August 7, 2008, Lynch was placed in a holding cell

with defendant, and while in the cell for several hours Lynch tried to convince

defendant to tell the truth about the shooting. Unbeknownst to Lynch and

defendant, the conversations were recorded. At one point during the conversations, Lynch, lamenting that he was being charged with murder, asked defendant,

“Why couldn't you just shoot her in the leg or something man.” Defendant did not

respond to this statement.

2 14CV2174-AJB(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-02174-AJB-BLM Document 10 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 7
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

In May 2009, Lynch reached a plea agreement with the prosecution, pleading

guilty to voluntary manslaughter, robbery, and attempted robbery.

Testifying on behalf of the prosecution at trial, Lynch stated that on the night of the shooting he and defendant (with Greene acting as the driver) committed two

street robberies. They committed the first robbery in an alley. Greene then drove

them to another location, where defendant and Lynch got out of the car and

approached two women (Nickerson and Lopez). Defendant was carrying a gun

owned by Greene. When Lynch saw defendant grab one of the women, he got

nervous and started looking around. Lynch saw a woman on a balcony, and he

kept his eye on her to make sure she did not run into the house to call the police.

Lynch heard someone screaming, “ ‘Stop. Leave me alone. No,’ “ and then heard

a gunshot. Lynch looked back and saw defendant bent towards the ground. Lynch

told defendant to “come on” and they ran back to the car. When they were back

in the car, defendant stated that “he got the shell casing.” Greene asked

defendant, “‘Why did you shoot?,’” and defendant responded, “Because the bitch

bit me.”

Dominic Holmes, a friend of defendant and Lynch, testified that defendant talked

to him about the shooting. Holmes testified that defendant stated that he, Lynch,

and Greene were “out taking purses” and that he shot “[s]ome bitch.”

Jury Verdict and Sentence

The jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder with personal use of a

firearm and with the special circumstance of murder during the commission or

attempted commission of robbery. He was sentenced to life without the possibility

of parole.

Id. at *1-*2; see also Docket in Case No. 13cv1192-MMA(WMc) at ECF No. 7-2 (Answer to

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus) at 6-7.2

Petitioner appealed his conviction arguing that "(1) the admission of his recorded

conversations with an accomplice violated his constitutional rights; (2) hearsay testimony was

improperly admitted under the prior consistent statement exception to the hearsay rule; and (3)

an instruction given to the jury violated the constitutional proscription against ex post facto

2

Respondent asks the Court to take judicial notice of the court records in case number 13cv1192-MMA (WMc)

and includes a copy of the docket in that case from Westlaw as the only lodgment in the instant matter. MTD at 2,

fn 1; see also Lodgment 1. Federal Rule of Evidence (“Fed.R.Evid.”) 201 provides that a court may take judicial notice

of facts "not subject to a reasonable dispute” in that they are either (1) generally known within the territorial

jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy

cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). The Court “must take judicial notice if a party requests it and

the court is supplied with the necessary information.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(c)(2). Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal

Rules of Evidence, the Court GRANTS Respondent's motion and takes judicial notice of the docket and records in case

number 13cv1192-MMA (WMc).

3 14CV2174-AJB(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-02174-AJB-BLM Document 10 Filed 01/05/15 Page 3 of 7
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

laws." Watson, 2011 WL 2858163 at *1. On July 20, 2011, the court of appeal published a

written opinion affirming the judgment of the trial court. See Id. On August 24, 2011, Petitioner

filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court which was denied on October 26, 2011. 

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1989448&do

c_no=S195873. On June 26, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the San

Diego Superior Court arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the

admission of tape recorded conversations in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. 

See Docket No. 13cv1192-MMA(WMc) at ECF Nos. 7-2 at 5 and 9 (Report and Recommendation

for order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus) at 4. The petition was denied on August

13, 2012. Id. at ECF No. 7-2 at 5. On September 27, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for writ

of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal raising the same ineffective assistance of

counsel claim that was denied on October 21, 2012. Id. at ECF Nos. 7-2 at 5 and 9 at 4. On

December 10, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme

Court which was denied on March 13, 2013. Id. at ECF Nos. 7-2 at 5-6 and 9 at 4; see also

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2032302&do

c_no=S207222. 

Petitioner began federal habeas proceedings on May 2, 2013 when he filed a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus in case number 13cv1192-MMA(WMc). In that petition, Petitioner alleged

the same ineffective assistance of counsel claim that he raised in his state petitions. See Docket

No. 13cv1192-MMA(WMc) at ECF No. 1 (Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus) at 7-12. On January

6, 2014, former United States Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. issued a Report and

Recommendation for Order Denying Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus. Id. at ECF

No. 9. That Report and Recommendation was adopted and the petition was denied on February

18, 2014 by United Sates District Judge Michael M. Anello. Id. at ECF No. 11. Judge Anello

declined to issue a certificate of appealability in that case. Id. at 3.

Petitioner returned to federal court on September 8, 2014 when he filed the instant

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Pet. In his petition, Petitioner alleges the same ineffective

4 14CV2174-AJB(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-02174-AJB-BLM Document 10 Filed 01/05/15 Page 4 of 7
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

assistance of counsel claim that was raised in the state court petitions and in case number

13cv1192-MMA(WMc). On November 3, 2014, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss requesting

that the Court dismiss Petitioner's petition "because it is an unauthorized successive petition." 

MTD at 1. Respondent notes that under federal law, Petitioner is required to "seek and obtain

permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit" prior to seeking habeas

relief on this claim. Id. at 2.

LEGAL STANDARD

A second or successive habeas petition is one that attacks a conviction that was previously

attacked in a federal habeas petition and judged on the merits. Johnson v. Marshall, 2010 WL

753363, *2 (S.D. Cal. March 2, 2010). In order to file a successive petition, a petitioner must

obtain authorization from the court of appeals. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)). In

accordance with the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 

(b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under

section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. 

(b)(2) 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--

(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 underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as

a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but

for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant

guilty of the underlying offense. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1-2). "Permitting a state prisoner to file a second or successive federal

habeas corpus petition is not the general rule, it is the exception, and an exception that may be

invoked only when the demanding standard set by Congress is met." Jimenez v. Paramo, 2012

WL 6893386, *4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2012) (quoting Bible v. Schriro, 651 F.3d 1060, 1063 (9th

Cir.2011) (per curiam)). "Where a petitioner has previously filed a § 2254 petition, a federal

5 14CV2174-AJB(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-02174-AJB-BLM Document 10 Filed 01/05/15 Page 5 of 7
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

district court must decide if a subsequent petition is ‘second or successive’ before it may exercise

jurisdiction." Id. (quoting Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274). "If the court of appeals

has not authorized a successive petition, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the

petition's merits." Id. (citing Cooper, 274 F.3d at 1274).

DISCUSSION

Here, Petitioner’s current petition for writ of habeas corpus raises the exact same claim

that was presented in his prior federal habeas petition and denied on the merits. Accordingly,

Petitioner's petition must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). Even if Petitioner’s current

ineffective assistance of counsel claim differs in some way from the prior claim, it must be

dismissed because Petitioner has not established that the current claim relies on a new rule of

constitutional law, that it could not have been discovered previously, or that the facts of his case

establish that no reasonable fact finder could have found Petitioner guilty. 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b)(2)(A-B). Finally, there is no indication that Petitioner "move[d] in the appropriate court

of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider [his petition]" before filing his

second or successive petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Accordingly, this Court lacks

jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's petition on the merits and RECOMMENDS that Respondent's

motion to dismiss be GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the District Judge issue

an order: (1) approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation, and (2) directing that

Judgment be entered GRANTING Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss.

IT IS ORDERED that no later than January 30, 2015, any party to this action may file

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be

captioned "Objections to Report and Recommendation."

///

///

///

6 14CV2174-AJB(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-02174-AJB-BLM Document 10 Filed 01/05/15 Page 6 of 7
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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court

and served on all parties no later that February 20, 2015. The parties are advised that failure

to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on

appeal of the Court's order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 5, 2015

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

7 14CV2174-AJB(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-02174-AJB-BLM Document 10 Filed 01/05/15 Page 7 of 7