Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03548/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03548-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donel Leroy Ardery
Petitioner
The People of the State of California
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONEL LEROY ARDERY,

Petitioner,

v.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-03548-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. No. 10

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He was ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as 

successive or transferred to another district. He has filed a response. 

DISCUSSION

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 

habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 

must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting 

each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ 

pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility 

of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

Case 3:14-cv-03548-JD Document 14 Filed 03/09/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II. LEGAL CLAIMS

Petitioner states that he was convicted in 1981 and has filed multiple habeas petitions in 

the Central District of California that were dismissed for failure to exhaust or as time barred in 

1991, 1999, and 2000. “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).

“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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner has submitted a 

response but has failed to provide an order from the Ninth Circuit authorizing a new petition. 

Petitioner was convicted in the Central District of California and is currently incarcerated in the 

Eastern District so this is not the proper district to file this case. The case is therefore dismissed. 

If petitioner obtains permission from the Ninth Circuit he should file the habeas petition in the 

Central District of California.

CONCLUSION

1. Petitioner’s motion for appoint of counsel (Docket No. 10) is DENIED.

2. The case is DISMISSED and a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2015

______________________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03548-JD Document 14 Filed 03/09/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONEL LEROY ARDERY,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03548-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on 3/9/2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office.

Donel Leroy Ardery

C.S.A.T.F.

P.O. Box 5242

#C38078

Corcoran, CA 93212-5242 

Dated: 3/9/2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:14-cv-03548-JD Document 14 Filed 03/09/15 Page 3 of 3