Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00049/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00049-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jonny Nelson Nixon
Petitioner
Superior Court of Kern
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONNY NELSON NIXON,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN,

Respondent.

No. 1:20-cv-00049-DAD-SAB (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO 

ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

(Doc. No. 4)

Petitioner Johnny Nelson Nixon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 27, 

2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the

pending petition be denied as an unauthorized second or successive petition. (Doc. No. 4.) The 

findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that any objections 

thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the findings and 

recommendations. Petitioner filed timely objections. (Doc. No. 8.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 

/////

Case 1:20-cv-00049-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 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

2

objections, the court has determined the findings and recommendations to be supported by the 

record and proper analysis.

In his objections, petitioner, in conclusory fashion, argues that the instant federal habeas 

petition raises different grounds for relief than his prior petition. (Doc. No. 8 at 2.) As noted in 

the findings and recommendations, a petitioner may file a second or successive petition raising a 

new ground for federal habeas relief if it meets the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(2)(A)–(B). (Doc. No. 4 at 1–2) (noting that a successive petition raising a new ground 

must be denied unless the petitioner can show that (1) the claim rests on a new, retroactive, 

constitutional right or (2) the factual basis for 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). However, it is not the district court that decides whether a second or 

successive petition meets these requirements. Rather, “[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) (emphasis added). Because petitioner in this case has 

made no showing that he has obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file a successive 

petition, this court has no jurisdiction to consider his application for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

and must deny the petition. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007).

Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 

a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 

absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 

allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253. Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching 

the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability “if 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.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain 

Case 1:20-cv-00049-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 04/07/20 Page 2 of 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

3

procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a 

reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in denying the petition or 

that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. In the present case, the court finds 

that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the petition should be denied

debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the court 

declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly:

1. The January 27, 2020 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 4) are adopted in 

full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied as an unauthorized second or 

successive petition; 

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and

4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00049-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 04/07/20 Page 3 of 3