Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01670/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01670-2/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

 In fact, court records also indicate that petitioner had filed an earlier application for a 1

writ of habeas corpus in Case No. Civ -S- 93-0182 WBS JFM P, which was denied on May 2,

1996, a decision affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in a filing in this court on May 12, 1997. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH EDWARD CAPOGRECO,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1670 MCE GGH P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has filed an application which the court must

construe as a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. See Order, filed on 11/27/06. Petitioner was

directed to show cause why his petition, which appeared to challenge his 1985 conviction, should

not be dismissed as successive, as he had already challenged that conviction in a habeas petition

in this court. See Capogreco v. Sacramento County, Case No. CIV S- 98-1410 GEB GGH P,

wherein the petition was dismissed on October 23, 1998, and judgment thereon entered. 

1

In his response to the show cause order, petitioner does not dispute that he should

be deemed to be proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, rather than upon a writ of [error]

Case 2:06-cv-01670-MCE -GGH Document 10 Filed 01/16/08 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

 As previously noted, court records indicate that petitioner filed an application for a writ 2

of habeas corpus in Case No. Civ - S- 93-0182 WBS JFM P, which was denied on May 2, 1996,

a decision affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in a filing in this court on May 12, 1997. 

2

coram nobis, and, although he does not reference Case No. CIV S- 98-1410 GEB GGH P,

concedes that he filed a federal habeas petition challenging his conviction in Case No. CIV S-93-

0182 WBS JFM P. Response to Order to Show Cause, pp. 1-2. He contends, however, that his

2

application is not successive because it deals with contractual law and because the terms of the

plea agreement that he challenges herein were not violated until 2005. Id. at 2. 

As the court observed earlier, petitioner is alleging the breach of his plea bargain

contract by the prosecution and the Sacramento County Superior Court in which he entered his

guilty plea, apparently in order to avoid a possible death sentence, to two counts of murder with

special circumstances and use of a firearm in commission of a felony, after which he was

sentenced to a life term without the possibility of parole plus two years. Petition, pp. 5-6. 

Specifically, petitioner contends that by the terms of his plea agreement, he understood that he

was to “be eligible for parole after 33 and 1/3 years and that he would be seen by the Data [sic]

Review Board prior to the 33 and 1/3 year date.” Petition, p. 6. While petitioner concedes his

LWOP sentence, he states that when received by the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (CDCR) on August 13, 1985, he was issued a Board of Prison Terms (now Board

of Parole Hearings) date of August, 2015, and a Date Review Board (DRB) date of 2005. Id. 

Petitioner contends that CDCR has not referred him to the DRB and has “revoked all BPT and

DRB dates from defendant creating a contractual breach.” Id. at 7. He now seeks to have the

plea agreement voided and to stand trial upon the original charges. Id at 10.

Petitioner concedes that he has previously brought a habeas petition challenging

his conviction in this court. While petitioner characterizes his current challenge as one based on

contract law, as he has been previously informed, his allegations that the state has breached a

plea agreement and any analysis of state contract law can only arise within the context of a

Case 2:06-cv-01670-MCE -GGH Document 10 Filed 01/16/08 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

3

habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254. See, e.g., Davis v. Woodford, 446 F.3d 957 (9 Cir. th

2006); see also, Buckley v. Terhune, 441 F.3d 688 (9 Cir. 2006). th

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), a claim presented in a second or successive § 2254

petition that was not earlier presented in a prior petition “shall be dismissed unless--”

(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 underlying 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 factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the

underlying offense.

However, “[b]efore 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A). 

The instant petition challenges petitioner’s 1985 conviction/sentence previously

challenged in this federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and is therefore a successive

petition. Petitioner must file a motion before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for an order

authorizing this court to consider his current challenge. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s successive

application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed.

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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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 Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-01670-MCE -GGH Document 10 Filed 01/16/08 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

4

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: 01/16/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

capo1670.fr

Case 2:06-cv-01670-MCE -GGH Document 10 Filed 01/16/08 Page 4 of 4