Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01250/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01250-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN FEGAN,

Petitioner,

v.

SCHULTZ, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01250-SAB-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT 

JUDGE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

I.

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.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

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, 

Case 1:24-cv-01250-KES-SAB Document 5 Filed 11/08/24 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

2

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, Petitioner must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before he can 

file a second or successive petition in the district court. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656–

657 (1996). This Court must dismiss any second or successive petition unless the Court of 

Appeals has given Petitioner 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 petition, Petitioner challenges his 1995 convictions in the Merced County 

Superior Court for murder, burglary, arson, and taking one’s own child. (ECF No. 1 at 1.

1

) 

Petitioner previously filed multiple federal habeas petitions in this Court challenging the same 

convictions. See Fegan v. Roe, No. 1:99-cv-06427-OWW-LJO (denied on the merits); Fegan v. 

Scribner, No. 1:06-cv-00531-OWW-DLB (dismissed as successive); Fegan v. Warden, No. 1:08-

cv-01140-DLB (dismissed as successive); Fegan v. Warden, No. 1:08-cv-1373-JLT (dismissed 

as untimely); Fegan v. Warden, No. 1:11- cv-01863-LJO-JLT (dismissed as successive); Fegan 

v. Brazelton, No. 1:14-cv-00967-AWI-JLT (dismissed as successive).

2 The Court finds that the 

instant petition is “second or successive” under § 2244(b). Petitioner makes no showing that he 

has obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file this petition. As Petitioner has not obtained 

prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file this successive petition, 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.

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

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 1:24-cv-01250-KES-SAB Document 5 Filed 11/08/24 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

3

II.

RECOMMENDATION & ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus be DISMISSED as successive. 

Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign this action to a District 

Judge.

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, limited to fifteen (15) pages in length, including any 

exhibits. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” The assigned United States District Court Judge will then review the 

Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 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: November 7, 2024 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:24-cv-01250-KES-SAB Document 5 Filed 11/08/24 Page 3 of 3