Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02084/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02084-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Griffin
Petitioner
Sacramento County Superior Court
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

DAVID GRIFFIN,

Petitioner,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR 

COURT,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-2084 JAM CKD P

ORDER &

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 

302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Petitioner has submitted a declaration that makes the 

showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, petitioner may proceed with this action 

in forma pauperis. 

Petitioner challenges his conviction in the Sacramento County Superior Court for “one 

count of conspiracy to commit murder, one count of aggravated kidnapping, one count of 

premeditated attempted murder, one count of first degree residential burglary, and one count of 

active participation in a criminal street gang, which resulted in a sentence of 84 years to life[.]” 

(ECF No. 1 at 3.) 

////

Case 2:16-cv-02084-JAM-CKD Document 9 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Court records reveal that petitioner challenged this same conviction in an earlier action, 

Griffin v. Gipson, No. 2:13-cv-2516 MCE GGH (E.D. Cal.), in which petitioner’s habeas claims 

were denied on the merits on March 11, 2015. (Id., ECF Nos. 20 & 21.)

A petition is second or successive if it makes “claims contesting the same custody 

imposed by the same judgment of a state court” that the petitioner previously challenged, and on 

which the federal court issued a decision on the merits. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 

(2007). Before filing a successive petition in district court, a petitioner must obtain from the 

appellate court “an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(b)(3)(A). Without an order from the appellate court, the district court is without jurisdiction 

to consider a second or successive petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. at 152, 157. 

As petitioner offers no evidence that the appellate court has authorized this court to 

consider a successive petition challenging his conviction, this action should be dismissed for lack

of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request to proceed in forma 

pauperis is granted.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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 fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner may address whether a 

certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this 

case. 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). 

Dated: November 3, 2016

2 / grif2084.succ

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-02084-JAM-CKD Document 9 Filed 11/03/16 Page 2 of 2