Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00405/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00405-0/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

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- 12cv0405

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK ELI HEARD, Civil No. 12cv0405-BTM (JMA)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF

SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)

GATEKEEPER PROVISION

vs.

McDONALD,

Respondent.

Petitioner Frank Eli Heard, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for

a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with an application to proceed

in forma pauperis. Petitioner challenges his January 18, 2008 conviction of two counts of

attempted premeditated murder (imposed as a result of a jury verdict) and one count of

voluntary manslaughter (imposed as a result of a guilty plea following a jury deadlock as to

a murder charge), in San Diego Superior Court Superior Court Case No. SCD193832. (Pet.

at 1.) Petitioner claims: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial

counsel’s failure to call Wade Mills, Petitioner’s co-defendant, as a defense witness to testify

that Petitioner was not involved in the crimes; and (2) that his guilty plea was involuntary.

(Pet. at 6-7.) For the following reasons, this case is summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) as indicated below. The Court does not rule on Petitioner’s in forma pauperis

status.

Case 3:12-cv-00405-BTM-JMA Document 3 Filed 02/28/12 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

27

28

-2- 12cv0405

PETITION BARRED BY GATEKEEPER PROVISION

The instant Petition is not the first Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Petitioner has

submitted to this Court challenging his January 18, 2008, conviction in San Diego Superior

Court Case No. SCD193832. On September 25, 2009, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus in SO. DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE NO. 09cv2117-POR. (See Petition [Doc. No. 1]

in SO. DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE NO. 09cv2117-POR, filed 9/25/09; see also Second Amended

Petition [Doc. No. 31] in SO. DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE NO. 09cv2117-POR, filed 11/12/10.) In

that petition, Petitioner challenged his conviction in San Diego Superior Court Case No.

SCD193832, alleging that he received an unfair trial due to the exclusion of statements which

co-defendant Mills gave to the police upon his arrest stating that Petitioner was not involved

in the crimes. (Id. at p. 6-6b.) On June 27, 2011, the Court denied the petition on the merits

of the claims presented, and judgment was thereafter entered against Petitioner. (See Order

filed 6/27/11 [Doc. No. 40] in SO. DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE NO. 09cv2117-POR; see also

Judgment entered 6/28/11 [Doc. No. 41] in SO. DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE NO. 09cv2117-POR.)

The Court subsequently denied Petitioner’s request for a Certificate of Appealability but

granted his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (See Order filed 8/12/11

[Doc. No. 52] and Order filed 9/1/11 [Doc. No. 54] in SO. DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE NO.

09cv2117-POR.) An appeal of this Court’s judgment is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals. (See Heard v. Cate, 9th Cir. Case No. 11-56310, Order filed 12/14/11 [Doc.

No. 18] noting that appellant’s opening brief has been received and that the determination

whether to issue a Certificate of Appealability is pending).

Petitioner is now seeking to challenge the same conviction he challenged in his prior

federal habeas petition. Unless a petitioner shows he or she has obtained an order from the

appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider a successive petition, the

petition may not be filed in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Here, there is

no indication that Petitioner has requested or received permission from the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals to file a successive petition. Accordingly, the Court is unable to consider the

Petition.

Case 3:12-cv-00405-BTM-JMA Document 3 Filed 02/28/12 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

27

28

-3- 12cv0405

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice to Petitioner to refile

his Petition if and when he receives the necessary permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals. The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a blank Ninth Circuit Application for Leave

to File a Second or Successive Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 28, 2012

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:12-cv-00405-BTM-JMA Document 3 Filed 02/28/12 Page 3 of 3