Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01444/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01444-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brandon Favor
Petitioner
Pat L. Vazquez
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON FAVOR, aka BRANDON 

FAVOR-EL,

Petitioner,

v.

PAT L. VAZQUEZ, Warden, California 

Correctional Institution, 

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01444-SKO HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AS 

SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE

Screening Order

Petitioner, Brandon Favor is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Because the petition is a second or successive petition 

filed without leave of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Court must dismiss the 

petition.

I. Preliminary Screening

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to conduct a preliminary 

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly 

appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules 

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 

Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

Case 1:16-cv-01444-SKO Document 7 Filed 10/25/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). A petition 

for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable 

claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th

Cir. 1971).

II. Petition is Successive

Petitioner has filed multiple prior petitions for writ of habeas corpus in this district and in the 

Central District of California. A district court must dismiss any claim presented in a second or 

successive § 2254 petition that was presented in a prior application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). A

district court must also dismiss any claim presented in a second or successive § 2254 petition unless 

(1) 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 (2) the factual 

predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously with due diligence and the facts 

underlying the claim, if proven and reviewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient 

to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found 

Petitioner guilty of the underlying offense, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). 

The circuit court of appeals, not the district court, must decide whether a second or 

successive petition satisfies the statutory requirements to proceed. 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(A) 

("Before a second or successive petition 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"). This means that a petitioner may not file a second or successive petition 

in district court until he has obtained leave from the court of appeals. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 

651, 656-57 (1996). In the absence of an order from the appropriate circuit court, a district court 

lacks jurisdiction over the petition and must dismiss the second or successive petition. Greenawalt 

v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997). 

///

Case 1:16-cv-01444-SKO Document 7 Filed 10/25/16 Page 2 of 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

3

Petitioner has not obtained leave to file the above-captioned petition from the circuit court. 

As a result, the Court must dismiss the petition.

III. Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district 

court's denial of his petition, but may only appeal in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of 

appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a 

district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of 

appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the 

validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or 

trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test 

the validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 

appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention 

complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which 

specific issues or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

If a court denies a habeas petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability "if 

jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that 

jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Although the 

petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate "something more than 

Case 1:16-cv-01444-SKO Document 7 Filed 10/25/16 Page 3 of 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

4

the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 

338.

Reasonable jurists would not find the Court's determination that Petitioner is not entitled to 

federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. 

Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

IV. Conclusion and Order

The above-captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED. The Court 

DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01444-SKO Document 7 Filed 10/25/16 Page 4 of 4