Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02159/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02159-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alonzo James Joseph
Petitioner
Joe Lizarraga
Respondent

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALONZO JAMES JOSEPH, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JOE LIZARRAGA, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-2159-KJM-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court has reviewed the petition as required by Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, and finds that the petition is second or successive and must 

therefore be dismissed. 

 A petition is second or successive if it makes “claims contesting the same custody 

imposed by the same judgment of a state court” that the petitioner previously challenged, and on 

which the federal court issued a decision on the merits. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007); 

see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-86 (2000). Before filing a second or successive 

petition in a district court, a petitioner must obtain from the appellate court “an order authorizing 

the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Without an order from 

the appellate court, the district court is without jurisdiction to consider a second or successive 

petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. 147. 

Case 2:15-cv-02159-KJM-EFB Document 5 Filed 01/06/16 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

 In the present action, petitioner challenges a 1997 judgment of conviction entered in the 

Sacramento County Superior Court in case number 96F01301. ECF No. 1 at 1, 15-16, 18.1 The 

court has examined its records, and finds that petitioner challenged the same judgment of 

conviction in an earlier action. Specifically, in Joseph v. Pliler, No. 2:00-04-EJG-GGH (E.D. 

Cal.), the court considered petitioner’s challenge to the same judgment of conviction. See Joseph, 

ECF No. 39 (magistrate judge’s May 15 2003 findings and recommendations to deny petition on 

the merits); ECF No. 46 (district judge’s August 5, 2003 order adopting findings and 

recommendations and denying petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus). Since 

petitioner challenges the same judgment now that he previously challenged and which was 

adjudicated on the merits, the petition now pending is second or successive. 

Petitioner offers no evidence that the appellate court has authorized this court to consider 

a second or successive petition. Since petitioner has not demonstrated that the appellate court has 

authorized this court to consider a second or successive petition, this action must be dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction. See Burton, 549 U.S. 147; Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (per curiam). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue 

 1

 For ease of reference, all references to page numbers in the petition are to those assigned 

via the court’s electronic filing system. 

Case 2:15-cv-02159-KJM-EFB Document 5 Filed 01/06/16 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

in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (the district court must issue or deny a 

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

DATED: January 5, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-02159-KJM-EFB Document 5 Filed 01/06/16 Page 3 of 3