Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00513/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00513-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBBIE ANN LOWE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

GLORIA HENRY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 045-0513 AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. 14]

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner was convicted of two counts of second degree murder in Fresno County

Superior Court on February 9, 1999. In addition, she was found to have served two prior

prison terms. Petitioner was sentenced to serve two concurrent prison terms of fifteen years

to life, plus a consecutive term of two years.

Case 1:05-cv-00513-LJO-WMW Document 20 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 6
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

Petitioner filed a direct appeal, and on March 29, 2001, the Court of Appeal for the

Fifth Appellate District affirmed the judgment. The California Supreme Court denied

Petitioner’s petition for review.

Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in Marin County Superior Court

on August 18, 2003, which was transferred to the Fresno County Superior Court. The court

denied the petition on August 29, 2003.

Petitioner filed three prior petitions for writ of habeas corpus in this court challenging

the same conviction she challenges in the present action. Lowe v. Henry, 01-5950 LJO was

denied on the merits on June 30, 2003. Lowe v. Henry, 04-5854 REC TAG was dismissed as

successive to 01-5956 LJO on December 23, 2004. Lowe v. Henry, 05-0098 REC LJO was

dismissed with prejudice on December 30, 2005, for Petitioner’s failure to comply with 28

U.S.C. Section 2244(d)’s one year limitation period and 28 U.S.C. Section 2244(b)’s

proscription against successive petitions.

DISCUSSION

JURISDICTION

Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a state court if the custody is in violation of the Constitution or

laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams

v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1504 fn.7 (2000). Petitioner asserts that she suffered violations of

his rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. In addition, the conviction

challenged arises out of the Fresno County Superior Court, which is located within the

jurisdiction of this court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 2241(d). Accordingly, the court has

jurisdiction over the action. 

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), which applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed after

its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2063 (1997), cert. denied,

Case 1:05-cv-00513-LJO-WMW Document 20 Filed 07/17/06 Page 2 of 6
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

522 U.S. 1008, 118 S.Ct. 586 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9

th Cir. 1997)

(quoting Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751, 769 (5th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1107,

117 S.Ct. 1114 (1997), overruled on other grounds by Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117

S.Ct. 2059 (1997) (holding AEDPA only applicable to cases filed after statute's enactment). 

The instant petition was filed on April 19, 2005, after the enactment of the AEDPA, thus it is

governed by its provisions. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

The AEDPA altered the standard of review that a federal habeas court must apply

with respect to a state prisoner's claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court.

Williams v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1518-23 (2000). Under the AEDPA, an application for

habeas corpus will not be granted unless the adjudication of the claim “resulted in a decision

that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal

law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;” or “resulted in a decision

that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence

presented in the State Court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Lockyer v. Andrade, 123

S.Ct. 1166, 1173 (2003) (disapproving of the Ninth Circuit’s approach in Van Tran v.

Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2000)); Williams v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1523 (2000). 

“A federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its

independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established

federal law erroneously or incorrectly.” Lockyer, at 1174 (citations omitted). “Rather, that

application must be objectively unreasonable.” Id. (citations omitted). 

While habeas corpus relief is an important instrument to assure that individuals are

constitutionally protected, Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 887, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3391-3392

Case 1:05-cv-00513-LJO-WMW Document 20 Filed 07/17/06 Page 3 of 6
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

(1983); Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 1086 (1969), direct review of a

criminal conviction is the primary method for a petitioner to challenge that conviction. 

Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 633, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1719 (1993). In addition, the

state court’s factual determinations must be presumed correct, and the federal court must

accept all factual findings made by the state court unless the petitioner can rebut “the

presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1);

Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 115 S.Ct. 1769 (1995); Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99,

116 S.Ct. 457 (1995); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1388 (9

th Cir. 1997). 

SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE PETITION

Respondent moves dismiss this petition as unauthorized second or successive

petition. Under AEDPA's "gatekeeping" provisions, an applicant seeking to file a second or

successive petition must obtain from the appropriate court of appeals an order authorizing the

district court to consider the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Section 2244(b)(2)

provides that 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 unless-- 

A court of appeals may grant such an order only upon a showing that: 

(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 underling the claim, if proven and viewed in the light

of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by

clear and convincing evidence that, but for 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). 

As set forth above, Petitioner has filed three prior petitions for writ of habeas corpus

in this court challenging the same conviction challenged in the current petition. Her current

Case 1:05-cv-00513-LJO-WMW Document 20 Filed 07/17/06 Page 4 of 6
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 5

petition is therefore successive. Petitioner has not provided this court with an order from the

Ninth Circuit under Section 2244(b) authorizing her to file a second or successive petition

with this court. Accordingly, this petition must be dismissed.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Respondent also moves to dismiss this petition as barred by the one-year statute of

limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 2244(d). For the reasons already set forth in the

findings and recommendations entered in Lowe v. Henry, 05-0098 REC LJO, this court finds

that the present petition is barred by the statute of limitations and that no basis for equitable

tolling has been presented by Petitioner. Accordingly, this petition must be dismissed with

prejudice.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s

motion to dismiss be GRANTED, this petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE, and the Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case and enter

judgment for Respondent.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party 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.” Replies to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Case 1:05-cv-00513-LJO-WMW Document 20 Filed 07/17/06 Page 5 of 6
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 6

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00513-LJO-WMW Document 20 Filed 07/17/06 Page 6 of 6