Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00094/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00094-1/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

ARCHIE LEE PARKS, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT FOX,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00094-LJO-EPG-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS

Petitioner Archie Lee Parks, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the instant petition, Petitioner challenges 

his 2008 conviction in the Fresno County Superior Court. As Petitioner has previously sought 

federal habeas relief with respect to the challenged conviction, the Court finds that dismissal of 

the petition is warranted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) because it is an unauthorized 

successive petition.

I.

BACKGROUND

On January 21, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF 

No. 1). In the section of the petition where specific grounds for relief must be identified along 

with supporting facts, Petitioner wrote “See attached Habeas Corpus and Opening brief 

submitted with this Federal Habeas Corpus petition,” but failed to include any attachment. (ECF 

Case 1:16-cv-00094-LJO-EPG Document 10 Filed 04/08/16 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

No. 1 at 4).1 Accordingly, on January 27, 2016, the Court ordered Petitioner to file the “Habeas 

Corpus and Opening brief” which he had failed to attach to the petition. (ECF No. 5). On March 

31, 2016, Petitioner filed a response to the Court’s order. (ECF Nos. 8, 9). Petitioner has filed 

what appears to be a copy of a motion for rehearing on new evidence that was submitted to the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 9). Nonetheless, the submission sets forth Petitioner’s 

grounds for relief.

II.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 

habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 

to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” 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 these 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)–(B). However, it is not the district court that decides whether a second or 

successive petition meets these requirements.

Section 2244(b)(3)(A) provides: “Before a second or successive application 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 consider the application.” In other words, a 

petitioner must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before he can file a second or successive 

petition in district court. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656–57 (1996). This Court must 

dismiss any second or successive petition unless the Court of Appeals has given a petitioner 

 

1

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:16-cv-00094-LJO-EPG Document 10 Filed 04/08/16 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

leave to file the petition because a district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a second or 

successive petition. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007).

In the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner challenges his 2008 

conviction of assault with intent to commit rape (Cal. Penal Code § 261(a)(2)) in the Fresno

County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1 at 1). Petitioner previously sought federal habeas relief in 

this Court with respect to the same conviction. See Parks v. Cash, No. 1:11-cv-00463-AWI-DLB 

(denied on the merits); Parks v. Harris, No. 1:11-cv-00745-MJS (dismissed as unauthorized 

successive petition); Parks v. Gonzalez, No. 1:12-cv-00101-GSA (dismissed as unauthorized 

successive petition).2

The Court finds that the instant petition is “second or successive” under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b). Petitioner makes no showing that he has obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit 

to file his successive petition. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's 

renewed application for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and must dismiss the petition. See Burton, 

549 U.S. at 157. 

III.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus be DISMISSED as successive.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 

THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 

District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

 

2 The Court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 

(9th Cir. 1980).

Case 1:16-cv-00094-LJO-EPG Document 10 Filed 04/08/16 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

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 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: April 7, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00094-LJO-EPG Document 10 Filed 04/08/16 Page 4 of 4