Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02948/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02948-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Koenig
Respondent
David B. Portee
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID B. PORTEE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

KOENIG, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 19-cv-02948-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Petitioner, a California prisoner, proceeds with a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The original petition was dismissed with leave to amend and 

petitioner has filed an amended petition. 

DISCUSSION 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The Court may consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 

habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 

must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting 

each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ 

pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility 

Case 3:19-cv-02948-JD Document 10 Filed 01/06/20 Page 1 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). 

LEGAL CLAIM

Petitioner was convicted in 1982 and sentenced to life in prison. Am. Pet. at 1. In the 

original habeas petition, the main argument was that the judges involved with various events in 

petitioner’s case in 1981 -- his arrest warrant, a search warrant, and a preliminary hearing -- did 

not have proper oaths of office in place. This was, on its face, a highly doubtful claim, but the 

Court determined in any event that it appeared to be successive or untimely. The petition was 

dismissed with leave to amend to address that issue, which is now taken up here. 

“A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 

that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). This 

is the case 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 

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. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). 

“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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which became law on April 

24, 1996, imposed for the first time a statute of limitations on petitions for a writ of habeas corpus 

filed by state prisoners. Petitions filed by prisoners challenging noncapital state convictions or 

sentences must be filed within one year of the latest of the date on which: (A) the judgment 

became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time passed for seeking direct review; (B) 

an impediment to filing an application created by unconstitutional state action was removed, if 

Case 3:19-cv-02948-JD Document 10 Filed 01/06/20 Page 2 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

such action prevented petitioner from filing; (C) the constitutional right asserted was recognized 

by the Supreme Court, if the right was newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made 

retroactive to cases on collateral review; or (D) the factual predicate of the claim could have been 

discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). A prisoner with a state 

conviction finalized before April 24, 1996, had until April 24, 1997, to file a federal habeas 

petition on time. Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Petitioner says that the petition is timely and not successive because he recently discovered 

that the judges involved in his case in 1981 did not have oaths of office filed with the Secretary of 

State. The point is not well taken. To start, petitioner has not proffered any evidence showing the 

lack of a proper oath. At most, he says he personally hasn’t seen what he considers to be 

appropriate documentation of the oaths. That is not evidence. Moreover, the facts relevant to the 

petition date back to 1981 or before. It is not at clear how any of this is, or could ever be deemed, 

new. 

That is enough to dismiss the case with prejudice. The Court also notes that, even if the 

petition were proper, it fails to state a viable claim for relief. Petitioner’s argument that there was 

an error under state law does not entitle him to relief because the state courts already denied this 

claim. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (a federal habeas court cannot 

reexamine a state court’s interpretation and application of state law). 

CONCLUSION 

The case is DISMISSED and the Clerk is requested to close the file. The Court declines 

to issue a certificate of appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 6, 2020 

 

JAMES DONATO 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-02948-JD Document 10 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID B. PORTEE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KOENIG, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 19-cv-02948-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California. 

That on January 6, 2020, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 

David B. Portee ID: C-50736 

CTF - Correctional Training Facility -Soledad

P. O. Box 689 

Soledad, CA 93960 

Dated: January 6, 2020 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO 

Case 3:19-cv-02948-JD Document 10 Filed 01/06/20 Page 4 of 4