Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00226/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00226-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Zane Hubbard
Petitioner
People of the State of California
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

On February 13, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant writ of habeas corpus in this Court. (Doc. 1.) 

Because the petition is successive, the Court will recommend it be DISMISSED. 

DISCUSSION 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make 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 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 granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). 

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 

ZANE HUBBARD,

 Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00226-JLT (HC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION

[TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE]

Case 1:20-cv-00226-DAD-JLT Document 6 Filed 03/02/20 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

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 factfinder 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.

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. Burton v. Stewart, 549 

U.S. 147, 152 (2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001).

Upon review of the Court’s dockets, it appears that Petitioner has previously sought federal 

habeas relief in this Court with respect to the same conviction numerous times. See, e.g., Hubbard v. 

Brown, et al., No. 1:18-cv-00181-LJO-SKO (dismissed as successive); Hubbard v. Gipson, No. 1:14-

cv-00597-LJO-GSA (same).

The Court finds that the instant petition is “second or successive” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

Petitioner makes no showing that he has obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file his 

successive petition. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s renewed 

application for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and must dismiss the petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. at 

157.

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to assign a district judge to the case.

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED as 

successive. 

Case 1:20-cv-00226-DAD-JLT Document 6 Filed 03/02/20 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

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. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 

twenty-one days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections with the Court. 

Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is 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 2, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00226-DAD-JLT Document 6 Filed 03/02/20 Page 3 of 3