Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01912/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01912-0/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In this action, Petitioner challenges his 2008 conviction for second degree murder. The Court

notes that Petitioner has filed a prior federal habeas petition challenging this very same conviction. 

The Court’s docket and Petitioner’s candid admission in his petition (Doc. 1, p. 11),

demonstrates that Petitioner filed case number 1:13-cv-00088-AWI-MSJ on January 11, 2013, which 

challenges the same 2008 second degree murder conviction. After considering the merits of the 

petition, the Court denied it with prejudice on January 28, 2015.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Review of Petition.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition 

if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is 

not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The 

SCOTT McKINSTRY,

 Petitioner,

v.

RON DAVIS, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01912-JLT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS AS SECOND AND SUCCESSIVE

ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE 

FILED WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO 

ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE

Case 1:15-cv-01912-DAD-JLT Document 4 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 3
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

Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after 

an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.2001).

B. Successive Petitions. [§ 2254]

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, as here, 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 that allow a petitioner to file a second or successive petition, but rather 

the Ninth Circuit. 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).

Petitioner makes no showing that he has obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file this 

successive petition attacking his 2008 conviction. Thus, the Court has no jurisdiction to consider 

Petitioner's renewed application for relief from that conviction under § 2254 and must dismiss the 

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

///

Case 1:15-cv-01912-DAD-JLT Document 4 Filed 01/06/16 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign a United States 

District judge to this case.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be 

DISMISSED as a second and successive petition.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 21 days

after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, 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 10 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 

Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01912-DAD-JLT Document 4 Filed 01/06/16 Page 3 of 3