Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01132/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01132-3/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

EDWARD V. SHELL,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 14-cv-1132-LAB-WVG

DISMISSAL OF SUCCESSIVE

PETITION PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)

vs.

DIANE JONES, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner Edward V. Shell filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus in the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The matter was transferred to this

Court, and then dismissed as successive. (Document no. 12.) Now Petitioner moves to

reinstate and transfer his habeas petition.

This is not Petitioner’s first habeas action. On May 24, 2000, Petitioner filed a habeas

petition in this Court in case number 00-cv-1065-BTM (RBB). There, Petitioner challenged

his 1997 state court conviction. The Court denied the petition, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed

the dismissal. See Docket no. 19 in case no. 00-cv-1065-BTM (RBB) (March 9, 2001); Shell

v. Terhune, 46 F. App’x 541 (9th Cir. 2002). Later, Petitioner filed in the same case a motion

for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), which the Court denied as successive. Shell v. Hill,

No. CIV. 00-1065 BTM, 2010 WL 5236018 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2010). On November 17,

2008, Petitioner filed another habeas corpus petition in this Court in case number

- 1 - 14cv1132

Case 3:14-cv-01132-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 03/20/15 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

08cv2159-H (POR). There, Petitioner also challenged his 1997 state court conviction. 

Petitioner’s November 17, 2008 petition was dismissed as successive, and the Ninth Circuit

denied Petitioner permission to file a successive petition. See Docket no. 10 in case no.

08cv2159-H (POR) (June 3, 2009); Shell v. Hill, No. 13-72732 (9th Cir. Sept. 26, 2013). 

Then, on April 9, 2014, Petitioner filed the petition at issue in this case. (Docket

no. 1.) He contends that the abstract of judgement from his 1997 conviction is ambiguous,

and California Department of Corrections officials have resolved that ambiguity in a manner

which he claims lengthens his sentence in violation of his federal constitutional rights. On

May 7, 2014, this Court dismissed Petitioner’s April 9, 2014 petition as successive. (Docket

no. 12.) Petitioner now seeks to reinstate that petition. He also requests that this matter be

transferred to the Eastern District of California.

This Court must dismiss any claim which was presented in a prior habeas petition. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). A claim in a second or successive petition must be dismissed even

if not presented in a prior habeas petition, unless the claim rests on new law, new evidence,

or Petitioner’s actual innocence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244b(2). But even then, the petitioner must

obtain the Court of Appeals’ permission to maintain the successive petition. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3). Because Petitioner is challenging the sentence imposed under the same

conviction that he challenged in his earlier petitions, he must show that he has obtained an

order from the Ninth Circuit authorizing this Court to consider the successive petition. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). He has not made such a showing.

Petitioner’s motion to transfer this matter to the Eastern District of California also fails. 

This Court has jurisdiction over Petitioner’s application for habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) and, in any event, no district court could consider Petitioner’s successive

petition without authorization from the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

- 2 - 14cv1132

Case 3:14-cv-01132-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 03/20/15 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

The motion is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED without leave to amend, but

without prejudice to Petitioner filing a petition in this Court if he obtains the necessary order

from the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 20, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN Burns

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cv1132

Case 3:14-cv-01132-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 03/20/15 Page 3 of 3