Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03331/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03331-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELLY H. WILSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-09-3331 DAD P

vs.

A. HEDGPETH, et al., ORDER AND 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 

In the petition now pending before this court petitioner seeks to challenge his

conviction (the nature of which he does not identify) and 170-years-to-life sentence imposed

pursuant thereto by the Sutter County Superior Court. Petitioner appears to be attempting to

present the following claims for federal habeas relief: (1) the amended information filed against

him in the state trial court was defective and the trial judge constructively amended the

information when he gave erroneous jury instructions; (2) his trial counsel provided ineffective

assistance; (3) he should have been appointed new counsel because there was a conflict of

interest between him and his trial counsel; (4) the transcripts of his were altered and tapedrecorded exculpatory statements made by witnesses were suppressed; and (5) he was denied his

Case 2:09-cv-03331-MCE -DAD Document 7 Filed 07/15/10 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

2

right to confront and cross-examine the lab technicians who issued reports on laboratory and

forensic testing of evidence in his case . Petitioner also asserts that he wishes to appeal to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

This court’s records reflect that petitioner previously challenged this same state

court issued judgment of conviction in another petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Wilson

v. Fairman, CIV S-99-1711 JKS. In that earlier habeas action, petitioner challenged his Sutter

County Superior Court conviction on twenty-six counts related to his sexual abuse of his

girlfriend’s two adolescent daughter, and his sentence of 175-years-to-life in state prison. (Case

No. CIV S-99-1711 JKS, Order Denying Habeas Relief filed Apr. 26, 2004 (Doc. No. 34) at 1.) 

In his federal habeas petition filed in1999 attacking this same conviction, petitioner presented the

following claims for relief:

(1) the trial court erred in failing to suppress his statement to

police; (2) the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the

allegations that many of the acts were committed by force; (3) the

trial court erred in failing to give a special jury instructions [sic] on

the element of force; (4) the trial court erred in excluding alleged

impeachment testimony from a witness; and (5) he received

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

(Id. at 1-2.) 

It is clear that the current action constitutes a second or successive habeas

application. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Indeed, most of the claims presented in the petition now

pending before this court are the same as those previously rejected when the court denied the

habeas application filed by petitioner in 1999. As such, those claims are subject to dismissal. 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). To the extent any claims presented in this action were not presented in the

prior application, petitioner may proceed with a successive petition in this court only by first

obtaining from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “an order authorizing the district court to

consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Without such an order from the

appropriate Court of Appeals, the district court is without jurisdiction to consider a second or

successive petition. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152-53 (2007) (“[B]efore filing the

Case 2:09-cv-03331-MCE -DAD Document 7 Filed 07/15/10 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

3

[habeas] application in the district court, a prisoner shall move in the appropriate court of appeals

for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.”) (internal quotation marks

omitted); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001); Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d

1100, 1111 (9th Cir. 2000). Because petitioner has not obtained the required order from the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, this court lacks jurisdiction and this habeas action should be

dismissed.

In light of these findings and recommendations, petitioner’s motion for the

appointment of counsel will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s December 7, 2009 motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc.

No. 5) is denied; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign this case to a District

Judge.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the pending petition (Doc. No. 1) be

dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twentyone days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 14, 2010.

DAD:4

wil0433.succ

Case 2:09-cv-03331-MCE -DAD Document 7 Filed 07/15/10 Page 3 of 3