Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01287/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01287-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
F. Foulk
Respondent
Roger Saesee
Petitioner

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

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 8, 2014, Petitioner filed his written consent to the 

jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge for all purposes. (Doc. 5).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant petition was filed on July 28, 2014. In the course of conducting a preliminary 

screening of the petition, it has come to the Court’s attention that Petitioner has previously filed one or 

more federal habeas petitions challenging this same conviction. A review of the Court’s own docket 

has demonstrated that Petitioner previously filed a federal petition in this Court challenging the same 

ROGER SAESEE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

F. FOULK,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01287-JLT

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS AS SECOND AND 

SUCCESSIVE (Doc. 1)

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE 

OF APPEALABILITY

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO 

ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE THE FILE 

Case 1:14-cv-01287-JLT Document 10 Filed 08/27/14 Page 1 of 4
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

conviction as in the instant case, in case no. 1:08-cv-01152-OWW-JMD.1 The petition in that case 

was filed by Petitioner on July 28, 2008, and denied with prejudice on March 10, 2010. On appeal, the 

Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the petition on August 5, 2013. 

DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Review of Petition.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition 

if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is 

not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The 

Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after 

an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.2001).

B. Successive Petitions. [§ 2254]

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 

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 fact-finder 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 that allow a petitioner to file a second or successive petition, but rather the Ninth 

Circuit. 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." (Emphasis supplied). In 

 

1

Error! Main Document Only.The Court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready 

determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. 

Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993). Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade 

Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.); see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 

F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989); Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th Cir. 1980). 

Case 1:14-cv-01287-JLT Document 10 Filed 08/27/14 Page 2 of 4
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

other words, Petitioner must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before he can file a second or 

successive petition in this 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. Pratt v. United States, 129 F.3d 54, 57 (1st Cir. 1997); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 

F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 794 (1997); Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 

990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996).

Because the current petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the Antiterrorism 

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) apply to Petitioner's current petition. Lindh v. 

Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997). Petitioner makes no showing that he has obtained prior leave from 

the Ninth Circuit to file this successive petition attacking his conviction. That being so, this Court has 

no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed application for relief from that conviction under § 

2254 and must dismiss the petition. See Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1277; Nunez, 96 F.3d at 991. If 

Petitioner desires to proceed in bringing this petition for writ of habeas corpus, he must first file for 

leave to do so with the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3).

Moreover, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 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, 335-336 

(2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 

U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, 

the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit 

in which the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a 

warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person charged 

with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's 

detention pending removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not 

be taken to the court of appeals from—

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention

complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or

Case 1:14-cv-01287-JLT Document 10 Filed 08/27/14 Page 3 of 4
4

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

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has 

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or 

issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

If a court denied a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability 

when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could 

debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different 

manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further’.” 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 

Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal 

habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. 

Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction;

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the file; and,

3. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01287-JLT Document 10 Filed 08/27/14 Page 4 of 4