Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00169/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00169-1/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

STEVE WILHELM,

Petitioner,

v.

RAYTHEL FISHER, JR., Warden,

Respondent.

No. 1:16-cv-00169-SKO HC

ORDER DISMISSING THE 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS FOR FAILURE TO STATE 

A COGNIZABLE CLAIM

SCREENING ORDER

On December 8, 2014, this Court dismissed as successive Petitioner’s most recent prior 

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Wilhelm v. Davis, Doc. 8 

(E.D.Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) (No. 1:14-cv-01776-SAB HC). The District Court declined to issue a 

certificate of appealability. Id. Petitioner appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit, which denied his request for a certificate of appealability. Wilhelm v. Davis, Doc. 13 

(E.D.Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) (Dist. Ct. No. 1:14-cv-01776-SAB HC; App. Ct. No. 15-15043). The 

United States Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari on November 16, 

2015. Wilhelm v. Fisher, 136 S.Ct. 508 (mem.) (2015). On February 5, 2016, in this Court,

Petitioner filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“2016 

Petition”).

1

 The 2016 Petition seeks to set aside the Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for 

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 

Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

Case 1:16-cv-00169-SKO Document 8 Filed 03/09/16 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

writ of certiorari in the 2014 case. Petitioner provides no documentation of his petition for writ of 

certiorari or the proceedings before the Supreme Court. Instead, he supports the above-captioned 

petition with substantive arguments supporting the claims set forth in his 2014 petition for writ of 

habeas corpus.

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). 

A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears 

that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 

440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

Discussion

Section 2254 authorizes district courts to consider petitions for writ of habeas corpus “on 

behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he 

is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Nothing in 

§ 2254 authorizes district courts to review the actions of the United States Supreme Court under 

the habeas review standards. Nor do District Courts otherwise have the jurisdiction or authority

to set aside prior Supreme Court determinations. The 2016 Petition fails to state a claim for 

which this Court may provide relief.

Even if this Court could examine the Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for writ of 

certiorari, Petitioner could not prevail. The genesis of this action was a successive petition for 

which Petitioner had not secured the approval of the Ninth Circuit, as required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b). When the circuit court has not authorized a second petition raising a previously 

present claim, the district court must dismiss the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). In accordance 

with the 

statutory requirements, this Court dismissed Petitioner’s successive petition and declined to issue 

a certificate of appealability. Petitioner appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit, which denied 

Case 1:16-cv-00169-SKO Document 8 Filed 03/09/16 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

a certificate of appealability as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (“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”). Nothing in the record suggests that Petitioner, whose notice of appeal 

consisted of resubmission of his district court petition, ever alleged that the dismissal of the 

petition pursuant to § 2244(b) denied his constitutional rights. Nor does the record include any 

evidence that Petitioner has ever moved for circuit court authorization to file a successive petition 

addressing his 2014 claims.

The Court will dismiss the above-captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus. Having 

reviewed the petition and its exhibits as a whole, as well as applicable law, the Court also declines 

to grant Petitioner leave to amend the petition, finding no basis to conclude that Petitioner could 

plead a tenable claim for relief if the Court granted leave to amend.

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

Case 1:16-cv-00169-SKO Document 8 Filed 03/09/16 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

 (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).

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.

The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court's determination that 

Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of 

encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 

appealability.

Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus 

be DISMISSED without leave to amend. The Court declines to issue a certificate of

appealability. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00169-SKO Document 8 Filed 03/09/16 Page 4 of 4