Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00221/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00221-0/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

GREGORY W. STEWART,

Petitioner,

v.

J. MACOMBER, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00221-EPG-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Petitioner 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 1994 conviction in 

the Merced County Superior Court for sale of a controlled substance. As Petitioner has sought 

federal habeas relief with respect to the challenged conviction numerous times previously, the 

undersigned recommends that the petition be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) as an 

unauthorized successive petition.

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.” A federal court must dismiss a second or 

Case 1:20-cv-00221-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 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

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 

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 1994 conviction in the Merced County 

Superior Court for sale of a controlled substance. (ECF No. 1 at 1).1 Petitioner previously sought 

federal habeas relief in this Court with respect to the same conviction numerous times. See

Stewart v. McGrath, No. 1:00-cv-05452-SMS (dismissed as untimely); Stewart v. Sullivan, No. 

1:06-cv-01400-WMW (dismissed as successive); Stewart v. Adams, No. 1:09-cv-00685-GSA 

(same); Stewart v. Adams, No. 1:09-cv-02212-JLT (same); Stewart v. Macomber, No. 1:10-cv00954-AWI-DLB (same); Stewart v. Macomber, No. 1:11-00814-DLB (same); Stewart v. 

Macomber, No. 1:12-cv-00594-JLT (same); Stewart v. Macomber, No. 1:14-cv-00266-AWIMJS (same); Stewart v. Macomber, No. 1:15-cv-00051-SKO (same); Stewart v. Macomber, No. 

1:15-01592-SMS (same); Stewart v. Macomber, No. 1:16-cv-00948-EPG (same); Stewart v. 

Macomber, No. 1:16-cv-01428-EPG (same); Stewart v. Macomber, No. 1:17-cv-00415-AWI-

 

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

Case 1:20-cv-00221-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 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

JLT (same); Stewart v. Macomber, No. 1:17-cv-00683-SAB (same); Stewart v. Macomber, No. 

1:17-cv-01100-EPG (same); Stewart v. Macomber, No. 1:17-cv-01420-EPG (same); Stewart v. 

Macomber, No. 1:18-cv-00012-LJO-MJS (same); Stewart v. Macomber, No. 1:18-cv-00338-

DAD-EPG (same); Stewart v. Macomber, No. 1:18-cv-01588-AWI-JLT (same); Stewart v. 

Macomber, No. 1:19-cv-00370-AWI-SKO (same); Stewart v. Macomber, No. 1:19-cv-00731-

AWI-JDP (same); Stewart v. Macomber, No. 1:19-cv-01056-LJO-JLT (same); 2

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

§ 2244(b). See McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding “dismissal of a 

first habeas petition for untimeliness presents a ‘permanent and incurable’ bar to federal review 

of the underlying claims,” and thus renders subsequent petitions “second or successive”). As

Petitioner has already filed numerous petitions for writ of habeas corpus regarding his 1994 

conviction, he cannot file another petition in this Court regarding the same conviction without 

first obtaining permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Here, 

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.

II.

RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

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

corpus be DISMISSED as an unauthorized successive petition.

Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to assign a District Court Judge to the 

present matter.

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 

 

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 1:20-cv-00221-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 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

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 

United States District Court 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 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: February 25, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00221-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 4 of 4