Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01579/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01579-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE B. ADAMS, No. CIV S-07-1579-LEW-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

D.K. SISTO, Warden, et al., 

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondents’ motion to dismiss (Doc.

8) on the following grounds: (1) the instant petition is a second or successive petition filed

without leave to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal; and (2) the instant petition was filed beyond

the one-year statute of limitations. Petitioner has filed an opposition.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-01579-LEW-CMK Document 11 Filed 01/15/08 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

2

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner challenges his August 6, 1996, conviction and sentence to 25 years to

life. Petitioner’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by the California Court of Appeal on

March 30, 1998, but vacated on an issue involving the order of restitution and remanded to the

trial court for further proceedings. The California Supreme Court denied direct review on July 8,

1998. The trial court amended the judgment on the restitution issue on October 28, 1998, and

petitioner did not appeal the amended judgment. 

Petitioner then filed seven post-conviction actions as follows:

First Action Sacramento County Superior Court

Filed February 11, 1999

Denied March 9, 1999

Second Action California Court of Appeal

Filed April 26, 1999

Denied May 6, 1999

Third Action California Supreme Court

Filed June 2, 1999

Denied August 25, 1999

Fourth Action California Supreme Court

Filed August 8, 2000

Denied November 29, 2000

Fifth Action Sacramento County Superior Court

Filed July 17, 2006

Denied September 1, 2006

Sixth Action California Court of Appeal

Filed October 11, 2006

Denied October 19, 2006

Seventh Action California Supreme Court

Filed December 20, 2006

Denied June 13, 2007

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-01579-LEW-CMK Document 11 Filed 01/15/08 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

A review of the court’s docket for this case reveals that petitioner was challenging 1

the same state court conviction and sentence. Petitioner failed to reveal the existence of this prior

federal petition in the instant petition.

The court granted tolling for the first, second, and third state post-conviction actions.

2

3

In addition, plaintiff has filed a prior federal habeas corpus case in this court on August 9, 2000 

(case no. CV-S-00-1706-GEB-PAN-P). That petition was dismissed as untimely. This court in 1

that case concluded that petitioner had until January 10, 2000, to file his federal petition. The 2

dismissal was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit and the mandate issued on March 15, 2004. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Second or Successive Petition

The court agrees that the instant petition should be dismissed as a second or

successive petition filed without leave of the Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); Cooper

v. Calderon, 308 F.3d 1020, 1023-24 (9th Cir. 2002). 

B. Statute of Limitations

The court also agrees that the instant petition is untimely. Logically, if the prior

federal petition was untimely when it was filed in 2000, this petition – which challenges the same

conviction and sentence – must also be untimely. To the extent petitioner raised new claims in

the fourth, fifth, sixth, and/or seventh state post-convictions actions which go to actual innocence

or which could not have been raised before, that would have been appropriate for argument to the

Ninth Circuit on an application for leave to file a second or successive federal petition. 

Similarly, to the extent petitioner agues a change in law since the prior federal petition was

denied, that argument would also need to be addressed in his Ninth Circuit application. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-01579-LEW-CMK Document 11 Filed 01/15/08 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

4

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 8) be granted; 

2. This action be dismissed; and

3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment and close this file. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 14, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01579-LEW-CMK Document 11 Filed 01/15/08 Page 4 of 4