Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04227/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04227-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Curtis Lee Morrison
Petitioner
Supreme Court 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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS LEE MORRISON

Petitioner,

 v.

SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

 /

No. C-09-4227 TEH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has

filed the above-titled Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a 1974 judgment of the Contra Costa

County superior court. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

finds the Petition is subject to dismissal because it is second or

successive and Petitioner has not sought or obtained authorization

from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or

successive petition as mandated under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).

//

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-04227-TEH Document 7 Filed 01/25/10 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

I

In 1974, Petitioner was convicted in Contra Costa County

Superior Court of murder and assault on a peace officer. The jury

found true special allegations that Petitioner was a felon in

possession of a firearm. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of

seven years-to-life in state prison. Subsequently, petitioner filed

state habeas corpus petitions challenging his conviction and

sentence, which were denied. 

Thereafter, in 1990, petitioner filed in this Court a

habeas corpus petition challenging his 1974 conviction and sentence. 

See Morrison v. Estelle, No. C-90-2858 TEH (PR) (N.D. Cal. filed

Oct. 4, 1990). On December 2, 1991, the Court denied the petition

on the merits. See id. Doc. #27. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit

affirmed the Court’s order denying Petitioner relief. See id. Doc.

#40. 

On September 11, 2009, Petitioner filed the instant

Petition. Doc. #1. 

II

A

Before a second or successive habeas petition may be filed

in the district court, the petitioner must first obtain from the

appropriate court of appeals an order authorizing the district court

to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Where a claim

presented in a second or successive habeas corpus petition under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 has been presented in a prior petition, such claim

Case 3:09-cv-04227-TEH Document 7 Filed 01/25/10 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

must be dismissed. Id. § 2244(b)(1). Where a claim presented in a

second or successive habeas corpus petition under § 2254 has not

been presented in a prior petition, such claim likewise must be

dismissed, unless: (1) the claim relies on a new rule of

constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review

by the Supreme Court, or (2) the factual predicate for the claim

could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of

due diligence, and the facts underlying the claim would be

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but

for constitutional error, no reasonable fact-finder would have found

the petitioner guilty of the underlying offense. Id. § 2244(b)(2). 

By the instant Petition, Petitioner seeks to obtain

access, under California law, to post-conviction DNA testing that he

alleges will enable him to show he is innocent of the crimes for

which he was convicted in 1974. Doc. #1. Specifically, Petitioner

seeks to have tested a “knit cap[] seen worn by the killer as he

fought with the officer” because “a fiber from the knit cap was

found on the handle of the gun used to kill the officer, but none of

the physical evidence implicated [petitioner], only eye witnesses

and circumstantial evidence.” Id. at 3.

B

In denying Petitioner relief from his prior habeas

petition filed in 1990, the Court observed “the record indicates

that there was evidence at trial to show that [Petitioner] had

robbed his victim, a police officer, before killing him.” See

Case 3:09-cv-04227-TEH Document 7 Filed 01/25/10 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

Morrison v. Estelle, No. C-90-2858 TEH (PR) (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 4,

1990), Doc. #27 at 3. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit summarized the

evidence presented at trial as follows: 

On April 21, 1973, [Petitioner] and his nephew

were driving on Highway Four in a pickup truck

when the drive shaft of the truck broke and the

vehicle coasted to a stop. While his nephew

left to get help, [Petitioner] tried to remove

the truck’s U-bolts in preparation for

installing a new drive shaft. Martinez Police

Officer Thomas Tarantino stopped by the side of

the highway to see if [Petitioner] needed help.

Several witnesses testified as to what

happened after Officer Tarantino stopped to help

[Petitioner]. After an initial conversation,

Officer Tarantino frisked [Petitioner]. The two

men were next seen wrestling on the ground,

after which [Petitioner] threw Officer Tarantino

onto the highway. Sylvia Young testified that

she saw [Petitioner] holding what appeared to be

a police service revolver. Cheryl Balsdon

testified that [Petitioner] waived a gun in the

air and pointed it at the officer’s head. 

William Boydston saw the officer and

[Petitioner] struggling, heard three shots, and

saw the officer fall. This witness saw the

officer stand and further struggle with

[Petitioner] until the officer fell again. 

Boydston heard one more shot.

Officer Tarantino died at the hospital from

gunshot wounds to his head and stomach. The

officer’s revolver was found on a hillside at

the scene. The revolver contained two unfired

bullets and four cartridge cases.

[Petitioner’s] driver’s license was found

in the officer’s uniform shirt pocket, and

[Petitioner’s] .22 caliber gun was found in the

officer’s right front pants pocket. Officer

Tarantino had a habit of putting the license of

a person in custody in his shirt pocket and of

putting any evidence taken by him in his right

front pants pocket. [Petitioner] was an ex-felon

on parole.

Morrison v. Estelle, 981 F.2d 425, 426–27 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Case 3:09-cv-04227-TEH Document 7 Filed 01/25/10 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

C

Because Petitioner did not present his claim of actual

innocence in his prior petition, to avoid dismissal of the instant

Petition as second or successive he must show either that the claim

he now raises relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made

retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, or

that the factual predicate for the claim could not have been

discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence, and the

facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear

and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no

reasonable fact-finder would have found the petitioner guilty of the

underlying offense. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). He has failed to

do so. 

As a result, the instant Petition may not go forward until

Petitioner obtains from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals an order

authorizing him to file a second or successive petition in this

Court. Accordingly, the Petition will be dismissed without

prejudice to Petitioner’s refiling if he obtains the necessary

order.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-04227-TEH Document 7 Filed 01/25/10 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

III

For the reasons stated above, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b) the petition is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice as a

second or second successive petition. 

Further, a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. See

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (eff. Dec. 1,

2009). Petitioner is advised that he may not appeal the denial of a

Certificate of Appealability in this Court; rather, he may seek a

certificate from the court of appeals 

The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions as

moot and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 01/22/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.09\Morrison-09-4227-dismiss-successive.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-04227-TEH Document 7 Filed 01/25/10 Page 6 of 6