Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00690/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00690-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNEY RAMEY,

 Petitioner,

v.

R.J. RACKLEY, Warden,

 Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00690-DAD-SKO HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT THE COURT 

DISMISS THE PETITION FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION (SUCCESSIVE PETITION)

Petitioner Johnney Ramey, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserts multiple contentions that the 

sentence imposed upon him in 1998 is illegal. Because Petitioner has contended that his sentence is 

illegal in at least three previous habeas petitions but has not secured authorization from the U.S. 

Court of Appeals to bring a successive petition, the undersigned recommends that the Court dismiss 

the petition as successive.

I. Preliminary Screening

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to conduct a preliminary 

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly 

appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

II. Procedural Background

Petitioner was initially convicted of two counts of second-degree burglary with the use of a 

knife on May 3, 1995. On June 6, 1995, the Fresno County Superior Court sentenced him to a term 

Case 1:16-cv-00690-DAD-SKO Document 8 Filed 06/06/16 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

27

28

2

of 34 years and 4 months, to life. On May 21, 1998, the California Department of Corrections 

notified the state court of a possible error in the calculation of Petitioner’s sentence. As a result, on 

July 29, 1988, Petitioner was resentenced to a term of 66 years to life.

The above-captioned action is Petitioner’s tenth petition for writ of habeas corpus in this 

Court. His prior petitions include Ramey v. Lewis (1:98-cv-06047-OWW-SMS HC); Ramey v. 

Richter (1:99-cv-06558-REC-SMS HC); Ramey v. Lewis (1:00-cv-06644-OWW-DLB HC); Ramey 

v. Lewis (1:00-cv-6671-OWW-HGB HC); Ramey v. Lewis (1:01-cv-5632-AWI-HGB HC); Ramey 

v. Loo (1:01-cv-06040-OWW-HGB HC); Ramey v. Kramer (1:05-cv-01504-OWW-WMW HC); 

Ramey v. Kramer (1:01-cv-01504-LJO-GSA HC); and Ramey v. Hill (1:11-cv-00449-AWI-JLT 

HC). Petitioner previously challenged the legality of his sentence in Ramey v. Kramer (1:05-cv01504-OWW-WMW HC); Ramey v. Kramer (1:07-cv-01504-LJO-GSA HC); and Ramey v. Hill 

(1:11-cv-00449-AWI-JLT HC).1

III. Second or Successive Petition

Because Petitioner filed this petition after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the 

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) apply. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 

U.S. 320, 327 (1997). When AEDPA applies, a federal court must dismiss a second or successive 

petition that raises the same grounds as a prior petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). The court must 

also dismiss a second or successive petition raising a new ground unless the petitioner can show 

that (1) the claim rests on a new retroactive constitutional right, or (2) the factual basis of the claim 

was not previously discoverable through due diligence, and the new facts establish, by clear and 

convincing evidence, that but for the constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have 

found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A) and (B).

The circuit court of appeals, not the district court, must decide whether a second or 

successive petition satisfies the statutory requirements to proceed. 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(A) 

("Before a second or successive petition permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the 

applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to 

 

1 Because copies of the earliest petitions are not readily available, Petitioner may also have challenged his sentence in one 

or more other petitions.

Case 1:16-cv-00690-DAD-SKO Document 8 Filed 06/06/16 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

27

28

3

consider the application"). This means that a petitioner may not file a second or successive petition 

in district court until he has obtained leave from the court of appeals. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 

651, 656-57 (1996). In the absence of an order from the appropriate circuit court, a district court 

lacks jurisdiction over the petition and must dismiss the second or successive petition. Greenawalt 

v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Petitioner presents no indication that he has obtained an order from the Ninth Circuit 

authorizing the filing of yet another successive petition attacking the 1998 judgment of 

resentencing. As a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition and must dismiss it. 

See Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1277.

IV. Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district 

court's denial of his petition, but may only appeal in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a 

certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a 

district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of 

appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the 

validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial 

a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the 

validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 

appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention 

complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which 

specific issues or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

Case 1:16-cv-00690-DAD-SKO Document 8 Filed 06/06/16 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

27

28

4

If a court denies a habeas petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability "if 

jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that 

jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Although the 

petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate "something more than 

the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 

338.

Reasonable jurists would not find the Court's determination that it lacks jurisdiction to 

consider the above-captioned habeas petition to be debatable or wrong. Accordingly, the Court 

should decline to issue a certificate of appealability.

V. Conclusion and Recommendation

The undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court dismiss the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus for lack of jurisdiction and decline to issue a certificate of appealability.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C ' 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Petitioner may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s Findings and 

Recommendations.@ Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may constitute waiver of the right to appeal the District Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 

F.3d 834, 839 ((9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00690-DAD-SKO Document 8 Filed 06/06/16 Page 4 of 4