Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00051/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00051-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Macomber
Respondent
Gregory W. Stewart
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner has 

consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge 

to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry 

of final judgment, by manifesting Petitioner’s consent in a writing 

signed by Petitioner and filed on January 23, 2015 (doc. 5). 

Pending before the Court is the petition, which was filed on January 

12, 2015.

I. Screening the Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing ' 2254 Cases in the United States 

GREGORY W. STEWART,

 Petitioner,

v.

J. MACOMBER, Warden, et al., 

Respondents.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00051-SKO-HC

ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS SUCCESSIVE 

(DOC. 1), DECLINING TO ISSUE A 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND 

DIRECTING THE CLERK TO CLOSE THE 

CASE

Case 1:15-cv-00051-SKO Document 6 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 7
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

District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make a 

preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The 

Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears 

from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is 

not entitled to relief in the district court....@ Habeas Rule 4; 

O=Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); see also

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). Habeas Rule 

2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all grounds of relief 

available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts supporting each 

ground; and 3) state the relief requested. Notice pleading is not 

sufficient; rather, the petition must state facts that point to a 

real possibility of constitutional error. Rule 4, Advisory 

Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption; O=Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d at 420 

(quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977)). 

Allegations in a petition that are vague, conclusory, or palpably 

incredible are subject to summary dismissal. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 

908 F.2d at 491.

The Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

either on its own motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to the 

respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition 

has been filed. Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 8, 1976 

Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 

2001). However, 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).

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-00051-SKO Document 6 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 7
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

II. Background

In the petition filed on January 12, 2015, Petitioner alleges 

he is an inmate of the Folsom Prison who suffered a conviction of 

possession of a controlled substance in 1994 in the Merced County 

Superior Court and was sentenced to eight years in prison. 

Petitioner challenges his conviction as resulting from proceedings 

that denied his right to a fair trial because of conduct of a juror 

in court, an unconstitutional search and seizure, the ineffective 

assistance of counsel, and the insufficiency of the evidence to 

establish possession of a controlled substance. (Pet., doc. 1 at 4-

5.) 

The instant petition is not the first petition filed by 

Petitioner in this Court that challenges the 1994 judgment. In 

Gregory W. Stewart v. Joe McGrath, Warden, case number 1:00-cv-5452-

SMS, Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction 

was dismissed because it was untimely filed. (Doc. 36 at 1-2, 5.)1 

Judgment was entered on September 26, 2002, and Petitioner’s appeal 

from the judgment terminated when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

denied a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 37; doc. 55, filed 

August 4, 2003.)

III. Successive Petition

Because the petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the 

effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 

of 1996 (AEDPA), the AEDPA applies in this proceeding. Lindh v. 

Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997); Furman v. Wood, 190 F.3d 1002, 

 

1

The Court may take judicial notice of court records. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); 

United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993); Valerio v. Boise 

Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D.Cal. 1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699 (9th 

Cir. 1981). The Court will take judicial notice of its own dockets.

Case 1:15-cv-00051-SKO Document 6 Filed 02/20/15 Page 3 of 7
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

27

28

1004 (9th Cir. 1999).

Under the AEDPA, 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 a new ground concerning the 

same judgment 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 the 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).

It is not the district court that decides whether a second or 

successive petition meets these requirements which allow a 

petitioner to file a second or successive petition. 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.” 

Thus, a petitioner must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before 

filing a second or successive petition in the district court. See, 

Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-57 (1996). This Court must 

dismiss any claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus 

application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior 

application unless the Court of Appeals has given Petitioner leave 

to file the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). This limitation is 

jurisdictional. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007); Cooper 

v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001).

Case 1:15-cv-00051-SKO Document 6 Filed 02/20/15 Page 4 of 7
5

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

A disposition is “on the merits” if the district court either 

considered and rejected a claim, or determined that an underlying 

claim would not be considered by a federal court. McNabb v. Yates, 

576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Howard v. Lewis, 905 

F.2d 1318, 1322 (9th Cir. 1990)). A dismissal of a federal habeas 

petition based on untimeliness is a determination “on the merits”

for purposes of the rule against successive petitions such that a 

further petition challenging the same conviction is “second or 

successive” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). McNabb v. Yates, 

576 F.3d at 1029-30. This is because such a dismissal is a 

permanent and incurable bar to federal review of the underlying 

claims. Id. at 1030.

Here, the first petition concerning Petitioner’s conviction was 

dismissed on the ground that it was untimely. Thus, the petition 

was adjudicated on the merits. Petitioner makes no showing that he 

has obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file his 

successive petition attacking the judgment. Thus, this Court has no 

jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s renewed application for relief 

from the conviction under section 2254 and must dismiss the 

petition. See, Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-57; Burton v. 

Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152; Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274. 

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.

IV. Certificate of Appealability

Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the Court of Appeals 

from the final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention 

Case 1:15-cv-00051-SKO Document 6 Filed 02/20/15 Page 5 of 7
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

complained of arises out of process issued by a state court. 28 

U.S.C. ' 2253(c)(1)(A); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 

(2003). A district court must issue or deny a certificate of 

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. 

Habeas Rule 11(a). 

A certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant 

makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

' 2253(c)(2). Under this standard, a petitioner must show that 

reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition should have 

been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented 

were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 336 (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484 (2000)). A certificate should issue if the Petitioner 

shows that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether: (1) 

the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right, and (2) the district court was correct in any procedural 

ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). 

In determining this issue, a court conducts an overview of the 

claims in the habeas petition, generally assesses their merits, and 

determines whether the resolution was debatable among jurists of 

reason or wrong. Id. An applicant must show more than an absence 

of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith; however, the 

applicant need not show that the appeal will succeed. Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 338.

Here, it does not appear that reasonable jurists could debate 

whether the petition should have been resolved in a different 

manner. Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial 

of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court will decline to 

Case 1:15-cv-00051-SKO Document 6 Filed 02/20/15 Page 6 of 7
7

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

issue a certificate of appealability.

V. Disposition

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that:

1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as 

successive; 

2) The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; 

and

3) The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this action because the 

dismissal terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00051-SKO Document 6 Filed 02/20/15 Page 7 of 7