Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01701/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01701-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD ANTHONY ANDRADE,

Petitioner,

v.

S. FRAUENHEIM, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01701 DAD MJS (HC)

SUPPLIMENTAL FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS 

The Court hereby withdraws the Findings and Recommendation issued on 

November 15, 2016 (ECF No. 5.) and replaces it with this Supplemental Findings 

and Recommendation. 

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

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

In the petition filed on November 9, 2016, Petitioner challenges an April 15, 2005

conviction in the Superior Court of California, County of Madera for assault with a deadly 

weapon on a peace officer, evading a peace officer, and other charges. (Pet., ECF No. 

1.) Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate state prison term of fifty six (56) years 

Case 1:16-cv-01701-DAD-MJS Document 8 Filed 12/12/16 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

to life. (Id.)

On November 15, 2016, the court filed findings and a recommendation to dismiss 

the petition as successive in light of Petitioner’s two prior federal habeas petitions 

challenging his convictions. On December 7, 2016, Petitioner filed objections to the 

findings and recommendation noting that the instant petition challenges the denial of his 

motion to recall his sentence and have it reduced under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 

2012, California Penal Code § 1170.126.1

A review of the petition indicates that Petitioner challenges both his underlying 

conviction and the denial of his motion to recall his sentence. Unfortunately, Petitioner 

has not raised cognizable claims with regard to claim seeking relief from the denial of the 

motion for recall. As described below, the Court finds Petitioner’s claims – challenging 

both his underlying conviction and his motion to recall his sentence – are both subject to 

dismissal. 

I. Discussion

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss 

the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.

The 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. A 

petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it 

appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis 

v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

 

1 Section 1170.126 "created a postconviction release proceeding whereby a prisoner who 

is serving an indeterminate life sentence imposed pursuant to the three strikes law for a crime 

that is not a serious or violent felony and who is not disqualified, may have his or her sentence 

recalled and be sentenced as a second strike offender unless the court determines that 

resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety." People v. Yearwood, 

213 Cal. App. 4th 161, 168, 151 Cal. Rptr. 3d 901 (2013).

Case 1:16-cv-01701-DAD-MJS Document 8 Filed 12/12/16 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

B. The Three Strikes Reform Act

Petitioner’s first claim challenges the denial of his motion to recall his sentence 

under the Three Strikes Reform Act. Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable under federal 

habeas corpus. Federal habeas relief is available only to state prisoners who are "in 

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2241(c)(3), 2254(a). "In conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to 

deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 

States." Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68, 112 S. Ct. 475, 116 L. Ed. 2d 385 (1991); 

see also Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 131 S. Ct. 859, 861, 178 L. Ed. 2d 732 

(2011) (per curiam) ("We have stated many times that federal habeas corpus relief does 

not lie for errors of state law.").

Generally, a challenge to a state court's application of state sentencing laws does 

not give rise to a federal question cognizable on federal habeas review. See Lewis v. 

Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780, 110 S. Ct. 3092, 111 L. Ed. 2d 606 (1990); Miller v. Vasquez, 

868 F.2d 1116, 1118-19 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding claim that offense did not constitute a 

"serious felony" was not cognizable on federal habeas review because it "is a question 

of state sentencing law"). To state a cognizable federal habeas claim based on a 

claimed state sentencing error, a petitioner must show that the error was "so arbitrary or 

capricious as to constitute an independent due process" violation. Richmond v. Lewis, 

506 U.S. 40, 50, 113 S. Ct. 528, 121 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1992).

Petitioner has failed to cite to anything in the record or elsewhere to demonstrate 

there was anything arbitrary or capricious in the state courts' finding that Petitioner's 

conviction for assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer and evading a peace 

officer rendered his Three Strikes sentence ineligible for recall. Petitioner has not 

provided any federal grounds in the petition and relies solely on California legislation and 

case law.

To the extent that Petitioner were to argue that the Reform Act violates principles 

set forth under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 120 S. Ct. 

Case 1:16-cv-01701-DAD-MJS Document 8 Filed 12/12/16 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

2348 (2000), such claims would fail. Under, Apprendi a sentencing court's finding of 

priors based on the record of conviction implicates the Sixth Amendment. 530 U.S. 466, 

120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435. Unlike a conviction, the Three Strikes Reform Act is 

an ameliorative provision, and can only decrease a petitioner's sentence. This Court 

agrees with the holdings of California courts finding the Apprendi doctrine inapplicable to 

the Three Strikes Reform Act. See e.g., People v. Superior Court (Kaulick), 215 

Cal.App.4th 1279, 1303-05, 155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 856 (2013). Petitioner has not presented a 

federal basis for relief with regard to his Three Strikes Reform Act proceeding.

Accordingly, the petition should be summarily dismissed for failure to state a 

cognizable federal habeas claim. A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed 

without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded 

were such leave granted. Jarvis, 440 F.2d at 14. Here, the Court concludes that it would 

be futile to grant Petitioner leave to amend his first claim, and recommends the claim be 

dismissed.

C. Successive Petitions

Petitioner’s second and third claims of his petition seek relief from his conviction. 

(Pet. at 7-8.) Petitioner asserts that he was not able to present photos or witnesses at 

trial that were favorable to his defense. (Id.) However, a review of the Court’s dockets 

and files shows Petitioner has previously sought habeas relief with respect to this

conviction. In case number 1:07-cv-00784-ALA, Petitioner challenged the same 

underlying conviction. On January 6, 2009, the petition was denied on the merits.

Petitioner filed a second petition on March 1, 2012 in case number 1:12-cv-00305 AWI 

MJS challenging the same conviction. The petition was denied as successive on August 

9, 2012. 

A court must dismiss a second or successive petition that raises the same 

grounds as a prior petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). A 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 constitutional right, made retroactive by the United States Supreme 

Case 1:16-cv-01701-DAD-MJS Document 8 Filed 12/12/16 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

Court 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 factfinder 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; the 

Petitioner must first file a motion with the appropriate court of appeals to be authorized to 

file a second or successive petition with the district court.

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. Greenawalt v. 

Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997).

Because the current petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the 

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 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 

the conviction. That being so, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's 

renewed application for relief under Section 2254 and must dismiss the petition. See

Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1277. If Petitioner desires to proceed in bringing this petition for 

writ of habeas corpus, he must file for leave to do so with the Ninth Circuit. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).

II. Order and Recommendation

The Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be 

DISMISSED. 

Case 1:16-cv-01701-DAD-MJS Document 8 Filed 12/12/16 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

These findings and recommendations are 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 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 

Recommendations." Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 

(14) 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. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 

839 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01701-DAD-MJS Document 8 Filed 12/12/16 Page 6 of 6