Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00607/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00607-0/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 

ALEJANDRO JIMENEZ, 

vs. 

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, 

Petitioner, 

Res ondent 

CASE NO. 12-CV -607 BEN (RBB) 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION OVER 

OBJECTIONS AND DISMISSING 

PETITION 

[ECF Nos. 10,23] 

On October 16, 2012, Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks issued a thoughtful and thorough 

Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of Alejandro Jimenez's Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (R&R, ECF No. 23.) Judge Brooks concluded 

that this Court is without jurisdiction because Petitioner failed to first obtain authorization from the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive habeas petition. Petitioner filed 

Objections to the Report and Recommendation on October 26, 2012. (Obj., ECF No. 25.) 

Respondent did not file a Reply. Having reviewed the matter de novo, the Court ADOPTS the Report 

and Recommendation and GRANTS Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. 

BACKGROUND 

The events that led to Petitioner's 1996 conviction are set out in Judge Brooks's report. (R&R 

at 2-3.) Following a jury trial in state court, Petitioner was sentenced under the Three Strikes Law to 

twenty-five years to life. The court added one consecutive year for a prior prison term conviction. 

- 1 - 12cv607 

Case 3:12-cv-00607-BEN-RBB Document 26 Filed 01/16/13 Page 1 of 4
1 That judgment was affirmed on appeal. 

2 In 1998, Petitioner filed a petition for writ ofhabeas corpus in this district. Jiminez} v. Lindsey, 

3 3 :98-CV -0309 lEG (LSP) (S.D. Cal. 1998). The court dismissed the action without prejudice for 

4 failure to exhaust state remedies. In 1999, Petitioner filed another petition challenging the same 

5 conviction. Jiminez v. Roe, 99-CV-1507 JM (POR) (S.D. Cal. 1999). The court dismissed that 

6 petition with prejudice as untimely. In 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner's request for 

7 authorization to file a second or successive petition. Jiminez v. Roe, 99-CV -1507 JM (POR), ECF No. 

8 16. 

9 On March 9, 2012, Petitioner filed the petition in this case ("Pet."). He again challenges the 

1 0 1996 conviction but asserts different grounds for relief, namely that his arrest violated the Vienna 

11 Convention on Consular Relations ("Vienna Convention") and that he received ineffective assistance 

12 of counsel. Judge Brooks concluded that Petitioner's failure to obtain the requisite authorization to 

13 file a second or successive § 2254 petition deprived this Court ofjurisdiction. He recommends that 

14 the Petition be dismissed on that basis. 

15 Petitioner objects to the R&R on the grounds that ''justice requires consideration of my 

16 petition." (Obj. at 2.) He states that the "magistrate as well as the D.A. are trying to suffocate and 

17 hobble the writ's effectiveness with the manacles ofarcane and scholastic requirements." (Obj. at 4.) 

18 His objections lack merit. 

19 DISCUSSION 

20 A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a magistrate 

21 judge on a dispositive matter. FED. R. CIV.P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). "[T]he district 

22 judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and recommendation] that has been properly 

23 objected to." FED. R. CN. P. 72(b)(3). 

24 "Because [Petitioner] filed his habeas petition after the effective date of the Antiterrorism and 

25 Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDP A"), its provisions apply." Little v. Crawford, 449 F 3d 

26 1075,1079 (9th Cir. 2006)(citing Woodfordv. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 207 (2003». WhenAEDPA 

27 applies, a district court may not consider a second or successive habeas application without 

28 

1 Petitioner's name is spelled "Jiminez" in the captions of his prior habeas petitions. 

-2­ 12cv607 

Case 3:12-cv-00607-BEN-RBB Document 26 Filed 01/16/13 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 

authorization from the appropriate court of appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Cooper v. Calderon, 

274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). "Generally, a new petition is 'second or successive' 

if it raises claims that were or could have been adjudicated on their merits in an earlier petition." Id 

at 1273 (emphasis added). Dismissal of a § 2254 petition for failure to comply with the statute of 

limitations is treated like a decision on the merits that "renders subsequent petitions second or 

successive for purposes oftheAEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)." McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 

(9th Cir. 2009). 

Respondent contends that the Court should dismiss the current petition because the 1999 action 

was dismissed with prejudice and Petitioner failed to obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit to file a 

successive petition. (Mot. to Dismiss at 4.) Petitioner concedes that he did not have permission from 

the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive petition. (Obj. at 1.) At issue then is whether the 

instant Petition is, in fact, "second or successive." Petitioner asserts that it is not because he raises new 

grounds for relief. (Oppo. at 7.) 

The Court agrees with Judge Brooks that the instant petition is successive. A petition may be 

second or successive even if a claim was not presented in a prior application. Cooper, 274 F.3d at 

1273. Petitioner is challenging the same conviction that he did in 1999. He appears to have had 

available and yet failed to raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in 1999. He cannot raise 

it now without authorization. 

Petitioner's second argument, that arresting authorities violated his right to consular 

notification under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention, does not change the Court's conclusion. 

Petitioner points to President Bush's 2005 determination that state courts should give effect to an 

International Court of Justice decision that 51 named Mexican nationals were entitled to review of 

their convictions due to Vienna Convention violations. (Pet. at 6.) According to Petitioner, this 

"constitutes a new factual legal development that was previously unavailable[.]" (Jd) But Petitioner 

misunderstands the meaning of "second or successive." In general, "ifthe purported defect existed, 

or the claim was ripe, at the time ofthe prior petition, the later petition is likely to be held successive 

even ifthe legal basis for the attack was not." Leal Garciav. Quarterman, 573 F.3d221, 222 (5th Cir. 

2009). As Judge Brooks aptly stated: "Whether Jimenez can make a prima facie showing that the 

- 3 - 12cv607 

Case 3:12-cv-00607-BEN-RBB Document 26 Filed 01/16/13 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 

Vienna Convention claim rests on a new rule ofconstitutional law that was previously unavailable and 

which the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review is a question for the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals." (R&R at 13.) 

Petitioner is challenging the same conviction as he did in a prior petition, which was dismissed 

with prejudice as untimely. Because Petitioner has not obtained an order from the Ninth Circuit 

authorizing the district court to consider his successive petition, this Court lacks jurisdiction to 

consider the merits ofhis claims. 

CONCLUSION 

After a de novo review, the Court fully ADOPTS Judge Brooks's Report and 

Recommendation. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Before filing another petition 

for writ ofhabeas corpus in this district challenging the same state court sentence, Petitioner must seek 

and obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b )(3). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: Jan=42013 

-4- 12cv607 

Case 3:12-cv-00607-BEN-RBB Document 26 Filed 01/16/13 Page 4 of 4