Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00288/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00288-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sokhean Keo
Petitioner
David Long
Respondent

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

In this action, Petitioner challenges the sentenced imposed after he was convicted in 1988 of 

various crimes. However, the Court’s notes that Petitioner has previously filed one prior federal 

habeas petition challenging this same conviction in case number 1:03-cv-5329-REC-HGB (“03-5329). 

That earlier case was dismissed for violation of the one-year statute of limitations. Because Petitioner 

has failed to demonstrate he has been granted permission to file a successive petition, the Court 

RECOMMENDS the petition be DISMISSED.

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 

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 

SOKHEAN KEO,

 Petitioner,

v.

DAVID LONG,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00288-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-00288-AWI-JLT Document 4 Filed 03/09/16 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

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 Court of Appeals. 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 (AEDPA) apply to Petitioner's current petition. Lindh v. 

Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997). Petitioner makes 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 and must dismiss the petition. See Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1277; Nunez, 96 F.3d at 991. If 

Case 1:16-cv-00288-AWI-JLT Document 4 Filed 03/09/16 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

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 this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 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, 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 District Court’s order. Martinez 

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00288-AWI-JLT Document 4 Filed 03/09/16 Page 3 of 3