Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-01113/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-01113-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL HILDEBRAND, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

R. BROOMFIELD, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 20-cv-01113-PJH 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION, AND 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY 

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. The original petition was 

dismissed with leave to amend and petitioner has filed an amended petition. As grounds 

for federal habeas relief petitioner seeks relief regarding the sentencing for his 2006 

conviction where he entered into a plea bargain. Court records indicate that petitioner 

previously filed a petition in this court regarding the same conviction. See Hildebrand v. 

Chavez, Case No. 10-1957 PJH. The earlier filed case was dismissed as untimely in 

2012 and an appeal was denied. Id. 

 “A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under 

section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed . . .” 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). This is the case unless, 

 (A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new 

rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on 

collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously 

unavailable; or 

 (B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have 

been discovered previously through the exercise of due 

diligence; and 

 (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed 

in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to 

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for 

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found 

Case 4:20-cv-01113-PJH Document 10 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). 

“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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). In 

the amended petition, petitioner argues that his new claims have merit. Even if the new 

claims have merit, petitioner must still obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit. 

The petition is DISMISSED for the reasons set out above. Petitioner may refile 

this case if he receives authorization from the Ninth Circuit. Because reasonable jurists 

would not find the result here debatable, a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is DENIED. 

See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (standard for COA). The clerk shall 

close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 20, 2020 

 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:20-cv-01113-PJH Document 10 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 2