Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01823/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01823-0/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

LEE V. QUILLAR, Civil No. 14-1823 BTM (PCL)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF

SUCCESSIVE PETITION

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER

PROVISION

v.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

On May 30, 2001, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court challenging his conviction in San Diego Superior Court

case no. SCE171373. (See So. Dist. Cal. Case No. 01cv0968 BTM.) On May 29, 2003,

federal habeas corpus relief was denied on the merits; the denial was affirmed by the

Ninth Circuit Court on February 7, 2005. (See id. at doc. nos. 60, 79.) 

Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment in case no. 01cv0968 BTM on

October 12, 2010, which this Court treated as a second or successive petition under 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b). The Court dismissed the matter due to Petitioner’s failure to obtain

permission fromthe Ninth Circuit to file a second orsuccessive petition. (Id. at doc. nos.

83, 85.) The Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal

on April 27, 2013. (Id. at doc. no. 93.)

/ / /

/ / /

-1- 14cv1823

Case 3:14-cv-01823-BTM-PCL Document 3 Filed 08/26/14 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

Petitioner then filed three additional motions which the Court also construed as

an attempt to file a second or successive petition; the Court dismissed them pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) as well. (Id. at doc. nos. 95, 97. 100.)

On July 28, 2014, Petitioner Lee Quillar attempted to file a document in case

number 01cv0968 BTM entitled “Motion to Amend Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 59(e).”

(See id. at 101.) The Court construed the document as a new petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and had the matter filed as a new petition in this

case.

In this Petition, Petitioner is seeking to challenge the same conviction he

challenged in his prior federal habeas petition. Unless a petitioner shows he or she has

obtained an Order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to

consider a successive petition, the petition may not be filed in the district court. See 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 

Petitioner’s most recent filing contendsthat he is exempt fromseeking leave from

the Ninth Circuit to challenge his state court conviction a second time under the standard

articulated by the Supreme Court in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012). In

Martinez, the Court held as follows:

Where, under state law, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel

must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding, a procedural

default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial claim

of ineffective assistance at trial if, in the initial-review collateral

proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was

ineffective.

Id. at 1320.

Petitioner contends that this Court must reconsider his habeas petition in light of

Martinez because he alleges he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

Petitioner is mistaken. Martinez addressed habeas claims which are barred by procedural

default. Id. It does not affect § 2254 petitions, such as Petitioner’s, which seek to

challenge a conviction which was already challenged on federal habeas review and

denied on the merits. To bring a subsequent or successive claim for habeas relief in this

-2- 14cv1823

Case 3:14-cv-01823-BTM-PCL Document 3 Filed 08/26/14 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

Court, he must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Id. at

§2244(b)(3)(A). 

CONCLUSION

Because there is no indication Petitioner has obtained permission from the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive petition, this Court cannot consider his

Petition. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice to Petitioner

filing a petition in this court if he obtains the necessary order from the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 25, 2014 ______________________________________

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

-3- 14cv1823

Case 3:14-cv-01823-BTM-PCL Document 3 Filed 08/26/14 Page 3 of 3