Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00836/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00836-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Fox
Respondent
Melvin Ward
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

Melvin Ward challenges his 2011 conviction for making criminal threats, which resulted in the 

trial court sentencing him to 17 years in custody. (Doc. 1) The Court notes that Mr. Ward has 

previously filed a prior federal habeas petition challenging this very same conviction. (Ward v. Duffy, 

case number 1:13-cv-01367-SKO) In the earlier matter, he asserted that there was insufficient 

evidence to support the conviction. On September 14, 2015, the Court denied the petition on the 

merits. Petitioner did not appeal and that judgment is now final. 

Because this current petition is successive, the Court recommends it be DISMISSED.

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 

MELVIN WARD,

 Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT FOX,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00836-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 1:16-cv-00836-DAD-JLT Document 5 Filed 06/21/16 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

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

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 has made no showing that he has obtained prior leave from the Ninth 

Circuit to file this successive petition attacking his conviction. That being so, this Court has no 

jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed application for relief from that conviction under § 2254 

Case 1:16-cv-00836-DAD-JLT Document 5 Filed 06/21/16 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

and must dismiss the petition. See Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1277; Nunez, 96 F.3d at 991. If Petitioner 

desires to proceed in bringing this petition for writ of habeas corpus, he must first file for leave to do 

so with the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3).

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: June 20, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00836-DAD-JLT Document 5 Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 3