Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01864/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01864-0/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

BENANCIO RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

K. ALLISON, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01864-GSA-HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE 

CASE

ORDER DECLINING ISSUANCE OF 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

On November 16, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant federal challenges his 1998 conviction 

sustained in Kern County Superior Court for failing to register as a convicted sex offender 

pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 290(g)(2). A review of the Court’s dockets and files shows 

Petitioner has previously sought habeas relief with respect to this conviction in Rodriguez v 

Allison, Case No. 1:11-CV-01714-GSA-HC. In that case, the petition was dismissed as timebarred. Petitioner appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the 

certificate of appealability was denied on January 18, 2013. The Court notes that the instant 

petition raises virtually the same claims as the prior petition. 

Case 1:14-cv-01864-GSA Document 7 Filed 01/08/15 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

I.

DISCUSSION

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, 

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, 656-657 (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. Pratt v. United States, 129 F.3d 54, 57 (1st Cir. 1997); Greenawalt v. 

Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 794 (1997); Nunez v. 

United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996).

Because the current petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the 

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) apply to Petitioner's current 

petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997). Petitioner makes no showing that he has 

obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file his successive petition attacking the 

conviction. That being so, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed 

application for relief from that conviction under Section 2254 and must dismiss the petition. See

Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1277; Nunez, 96 F.3d at 991. 

///

Case 1:14-cv-01864-GSA Document 7 Filed 01/08/15 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

II.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district 

court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El 

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to 

issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a 

district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court 

of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the 

validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial 

a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the 

validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 

appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from–

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 

court; or

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate 

which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph 

(2).

If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 

appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his 

constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve 

encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must 

demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on 

his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 

Case 1:14-cv-01864-GSA Document 7 Filed 01/08/15 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

determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or 

deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court hereby declines to issue a 

certificate of appealability.

III.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as successive; 

2) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and terminate the case; and

3) The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01864-GSA Document 7 Filed 01/08/15 Page 4 of 4