Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02212/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02212-1/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

The Court takes judicial notice of the docket in case nos. 1:00-cv-05452-SMS, 1:06-01400-YNP, and 1:09-cv1

00685-GSA. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9 Cir.1993); Valerio v. Boise th

Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699, (9 Cir.) (Judicial notice may be taken of court th

records). 

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY W. STEWART, )

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

v. )

)

 )

DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden, )

 )

Respondent. )

____________________________________) 

1:09-cv-02212-JLT HC 

ORDER DISMISSING SUCCESSIVE

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b) (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGEMENT AND CLOSE

FILE

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed his written consent to the jurisdiction of the United

States Magistrate Judge for all purposes on January 21, 2010. (Doc. 6).

In the petition filed on December 21, 2009, Petitioner challenges his 1994 conviction in

Merced County Superior Court for sale of a controlled substance. Petitioner was sentenced to a

prison term of eight years. (Doc. 1, p. 1). 

A review of the Court’s own dockets and files shows Petitioner has previously sought habeas

relief with respect to this same conviction. Case no. 1:00-cv-05452-SMS, filed on February 18, 1

Case 1:09-cv-02212-JLT Document 7 Filed 01/29/10 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

The Court notes that the claims in case nos. 1:06-cv-01400-YNP and 1:09-cv-00685-GSA are identical to those

2

raised in the instant petition and substantially identical to those raised in case no. 1:00-cv-05452-SMS. The emerging pattern

from this chronology is that Petitioner apparently believes, erroneously, that he may periodically re-package these same

habeas claims into a new petition and file it with this Court, hoping to avoid the successive petition bar and to proceed without

the Court having realized that these same claims have already been rejected on multiple grounds and on multiple occasions.

Petitioner is urged to heed the Court’s advice and seek permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before filing any

further challenges to his 1994 conviction.

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

2000, was dismissed as untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), on September 24, 2002. 

Petitioner then filed a second petition challenging his 1994 conviction on October 11, 2006 in case

no. 1:06-cv-01400-YNP, which was dismissed by this Court as a second and successive petition on

March 17, 2008. On April 17, 2009, Petitioner filed yet another challenge to his 1994 conviction in

case no. 1:09-cv-00685-GSA, which, again, was dismissed as a second and successive petition on

May 7, 2009. 

2

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 fact-finder 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, which allow a petitioner to file a

second or successive petition. 

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

Case 1:09-cv-02212-JLT Document 7 Filed 01/29/10 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

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 his 1994 Merced

County 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. If Petitioner desires to proceed in bringing

this petition for writ of habeas corpus, he must first file for leave to do so with the Ninth Circuit. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3).

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction; and,

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-02212-JLT Document 7 Filed 01/29/10 Page 3 of 3