Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00286/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00286-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Arnold
Respondent
Ralph D. Moreland
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RALPH D. MORELAND, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ERIC ARNOLD, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-0286 KJM AC P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro and in forma pauperis with a petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Presently before the court is respondent’s 

motion to dismiss, ECF No. 21, filed August 19, 2015. Petitioner has opposed the motion. ECF 

No. 24. 

I. Background 

Petitioner was convicted in Solano County Superior Court of two counts of first degree 

murder and two counts of second degree robbery. On December 13, 1996, the trial court 

sentenced petitioner to state prison for two consecutive life terms without the possibility of 

parole. ECF No. 21-1 Exh. A at 5. 

Petitioner appealed, and the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District 

affirmed the conviction on May 20, 1998. See Dkt. in Case No. A077037 (Cal. App. Div. 1). 

Petitioner also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal, which 

Case 2:15-cv-00286-KJM-AC Document 25 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 6
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

was also denied on May 20, 1998. See Dkt. in Case No. A080742 (Cal. App. Div. 1). On August 

19, 1998, the California Supreme Court denied review of both the direct appeal and the habeas 

petition. See Dkt. in Case Nos. S071458 and S071556 (Cal.); ECF No. 21-1 Exh. A at 5. 

On February 3, 2000, petitioner filed a second habeas petition in the California Supreme 

Court, which was denied on April 26, 2000. See Dkt. in Case No. S085614 (Cal.). 

On April 13, 2001, petitioner filed a federal habeas petition in the United States District 

Court, Northern District of California, which was designated Case No. C 01-1470 MJJ. By order 

dated November 28, 2002, the district court found the federal petition untimely because it was 

filed outside the one-year statute of limitations, and granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the 

petition as procedurally barred.1

 See ECF No. 21-1 Exh. A at 5-7 (Order dismissing federal 

habeas petition in Moreland v. Lamarque, No. C01-1470-MJJ, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24814 

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2002)) (hereafter “NDCA Order”). On September 18, 2003, petitioner filed a 

request for a certificate of appealability, which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied on 

October 22, 2003. See ECF No. 21-1 Exh. B at 9-10 (copy of docket in Case No. 03-16726 (9th 

Cir.)). 

 On February 2, 2006, petitioner filed a third habeas petition in the California Supreme 

Court, which was denied on November 29, 2006. See Dkt. in Case No. S140919 (Cal.). 

 On June 21, 2007, petitioner filed an application in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for 

leave to file a second or successive petition in federal court. The Ninth Circuit denied the 

application on August 2, 2007. See ECF No. 21-1 Exh. C at 12-13 (copy of docket in Case No. 

07-72456 (9th Cir.)). 

On June 27, 2014, petitioner filed a fourth habeas petition in the California Supreme 

Court, which was denied on September 10, 2014. See Dkt. in Case No. S219706 (Cal.); ECF No. 

 

1

 The district court considered and rejected petitioner’s argument that the court should address 

his otherwise procedurally barred claims on the merits because he made a colorable showing of 

actual innocence. See ECF No. 21-1 Exh. A at 6-7. Specifically, in finding that petitioner’s 

claim of actual innocence did not rise to the standard articulated in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 

(1995), the court observed that petitioner presented “no new evidence of his innocence, nor [did] 

he present evidence that was excluded at trial.” Id. at 7. Instead, petitioner urged the court to 

“review evidence admitted at trial and discussed on appeal in a new light.” Id. 

Case 2:15-cv-00286-KJM-AC Document 25 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 6
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

1-2 at 25 (Order of denial from California Supreme Court). 

 The instant federal petition, ECF No. 1, was constructively filed on December 28, 2014.2 

II. Motion to Dismiss 

Respondent moves for dismissal on the ground that petitioner’s § 2254 petition is 

successive under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2). ECF No. 21 at 1, 3. Specifically, respondent argues that 

because petitioner did not first obtain authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for 

leave to file a second or successive petition, the instant petition should be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. Id. at 3. 

Petitioner opposed the motion,3 arguing that the court may consider his successive petition 

on the merits because he has newly-discovered evidence to support his claims of actual innocence 

and ineffective assistance of counsel. See ECF No. 24 at 3-15. Specifically, petitioner contends 

that his trial counsel failed to investigate or have DNA testing conducted on a baseball cap found 

near the scene of the crime, which petitioner learned of for the first time when reading through 

trial counsel’s case file in 2013.4 See id. at 21-24. Petitioner further contends that although 

petitioner informed counsel of three alibi witnesses willing to testify on petitioner’s behalf, 

counsel failed to call any of those witnesses at trial. See id. at 17-20. 

Respondent did not file a reply. 

III. Successive Petition 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) provides that a second or successive application for habeas 

relief may not be filed in district court without prior authorization by the court of appeals. See 

Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656–657 (1996). Prior authorization is a jurisdictional requisite. 

Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th 

 

2

 Since petitioner is proceeding pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox rule. See 

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Under the prison mailbox rule, the date petitioner 

signed the petition will be considered his filing date absent evidence to the contrary. See Jenkins 

v. Johnson, 330 F.3d 1146, 1149 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, the proof of service attached to the 

instant petition is dated December 28, 2014. See ECF No. 1-2 at 23; ECF No. 1-3 at 35. 

3

 The court notes that although labeled “Traverse,” the filing is substantively a response to 

respondent’s motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 24. 

4

 Petitioner explains that a witness told police that one of the perpetrators was wearing a baseball 

cap. See ECF No. 24 at 21. 

Case 2:15-cv-00286-KJM-AC Document 25 Filed 01/15/16 Page 3 of 6
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

Cir.2001) (once district court has recognized a petition as second or successive pursuant to § 

2244(b), it lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits). The district court has discretion either to 

transfer a successive petition to the court of appeals or to dismiss the petition. United States v. 

Winestock, 340 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2003) (§ 2255 case); Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 139–

140 (3rd Cir. 2002). 

A petition is successive within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) where it “seeks to add 

a new ground for relief,” or “if it attacks the federal court's previous resolution of a claim on the 

merits . . .” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005) (emphasis in original). “[A] ‘claim’ 

as used in § 2244(b) is an asserted federal basis for relief from a state court's judgment of 

conviction.” Id. at 530. “A habeas petition is second or successive only if it raises claims that 

were or could have been adjudicated on the merits.” McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th 

Cir.2009) (citing Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir.2008)). 

Petitioner previously challenged his conviction and sentence in Moreland v. Lamarque, 

Case No. C 01-1470 MJJ, which was denied on the merits on November 28, 2002.5 This court 

takes judicial notice of the record in that proceeding. See Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 

F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126 

(1981) (judicial notice may be taken of court records). Respondent has also indicated that 

petitioner’s request for leave to file a second or successive petition in federal court, filed June 21, 

2007, was denied by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 2, 2007. See ECF No. 21 at 3; 

ECF No. 21-1 Exh. C at 12-13 (copy of docket in Case No. 07-72456 (9th Cir.)). There is no 

indication that petitioner sought further leave from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a 

second or successive petition. 

 Respondent contends that the instant petition is successive because petitioner already 

challenged this same sentence and conviction in a prior federal habeas petition, which was 

 

5

 See ECF No. 21-1 Exh. A (copy of NDCA Order, summarizing petitioner’s multiple bases for 

challenging his 1996 conviction and granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as 

untimely because it was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations). Respondent has 

indicated that petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealabilty was denied. See ECF No. 21-1 

Exh. B at 9-10 (copy of docket in Case No. 03-16726 (9th Cir.)). 

Case 2:15-cv-00286-KJM-AC Document 25 Filed 01/15/16 Page 4 of 6
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 

5

dismissed as untimely. ECF No. 21 at 1. Respondent is correct. Because the prior petition was 

denied on the merits, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) applies. McNabb, 576 F.3d at 1029. Because 

petitioner has “brought claims contesting the same custody imposed by the same judgment of a 

state court” without first having obtained the requisite authorization from the Court of Appeals, 

Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. at 153, this court cannot entertain the petition. Should petitioner seek 

to proceed on the merits, he must seek authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to 

do so. 

IV. Summary 

Even though petitioner claims to make a credible showing of actual innocence, this court 

cannot consider his federal habeas petition unless petitioner first gets permission from the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for leave to file a second or successive petition. Because 

petitioner did not get permission from the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive petition, 

this court cannot consider his petition. 

Petitioner may re-file his federal petition after he obtains permission from the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. If he obtains permission, petitioner should re-file his federal petition 

with a copy of the order from the Ninth Circuit authorizing him to file a second or successive 

petition. 

V. Conclusion 

In accordance with above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 21) be granted on the ground that the 

petition is successive; and 

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without 

prejudice to its refiling with a copy of an order from the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals authorizing petitioner to file a second or successive petition. 

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 twenty-one 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 

Case 2:15-cv-00286-KJM-AC Document 25 Filed 01/15/16 Page 5 of 6
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 

6

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. 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). 

DATED: January 14, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-00286-KJM-AC Document 25 Filed 01/15/16 Page 6 of 6