Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-00744/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-00744-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary R. Elerick
Petitioner
Knipp
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

GARY R. ELERICK,

Petitioner,

 vs.

KNIPP,

Respondent. /

No. C 13-0744 PJH (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO

DISMISS AND DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY 

This is a habeas case brought pro se by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the petition is successive. 

Petitioner has not filed an opposition, but has filed a motion to stay. For the reasons set

forth below, the motion to dismiss is granted. 

DISCUSSION

Successive Petitions

“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).

Case 4:13-cv-00744-PJH Document 13 Filed 01/03/14 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

However, “[b]efore 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).

Petitioner pleaded no contest in Santa Clara County Superior Court case CC577645

and on March 7, 2007, was sentenced to prison for 28 years to life and a consecutive term

of 25 years. Plaintiff appealed the conviction and later filed a federal habeas petition in this

court, Elerick v. Martel, No. C 09-1354 PJH (PR). The court denied the habeas petition on

the merits on October 25, 2010, and denied a certificate of appealability. The Ninth Circuit

also denied a certificate of appealability on April 27, 2012. 

The instant federal petition is successive as it again concerns petitioner’s conviction

in Santa Clara County Superior Court case CC577645. Before petitioner can proceed with

the instant application, he must move in the Ninth Circuit for an order authorizing the district

court to consider the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Therefore, petitioner's

application must be dismissed to its refiling upon obtaining authorization from the Ninth

Circuit. Petitioner does not contest that the petition is successive, but seeks a motion to

stay. As the petition is successive, petitioner’s motion for a stay is denied as unnecessary

and he may re-file this case if he receives authorization from the Ninth Circuit.

CONCLUSION 

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 8) is GRANTED as discussed

above. The petition is DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the file.

2. Petitioner’s motion to stay (Docket No. 11) is DENIED.

APPEALABILITY

The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a

district court that enters a final order adverse to the petitioner to grant or deny a certificate

of appealability in the order. See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C.

foll. § 2254.

A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding

without first obtaining a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App.

Case 4:13-cv-00744-PJH Document 13 Filed 01/03/14 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P. 22(b). Section 2253(c)(1) applies to an appeal of a final order entered on a procedural

question antecedent to the merits, for instance a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds,

as here. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000).

“Determining whether a COA should issue where the petition was dismissed on

procedural grounds has two components, one directed at the underlying constitutional

claims and one directed at the district court’s procedural holding.” Id. at 484-85. “When the

district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the

prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at

least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim

of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484. As each of these

components is a “threshold inquiry,” the federal court “may find that it can dispose of the

application in a fair and prompt manner if it proceeds first to resolve the issue whose

answer is more apparent from the record and arguments.” Id. at 485. Supreme Court

jurisprudence “allows and encourages” federal courts to first resolve the procedural issue,

as was done here. See id. 

Here, the court declines to issue a COA regarding the procedural holding or the

underlying claim as reasonable jurists would not find the court’s findings debatable. The

court therefore DENIES a COA. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2014. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.13\Elerick0744.mtd.wpd

 

Case 4:13-cv-00744-PJH Document 13 Filed 01/03/14 Page 3 of 3