Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01808/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01808-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brandon Favor-El
Petitioner
Michelle Rome
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

BRANDON FAVOR, aka BRANDON 

FAVOR-EL,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHELLE ROME,

Respondent.

No. 1:16-cv-01808-DAD-SKO

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AS 

SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE

Petitioner, Brandon Favor is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition in the above-captioned case attempts to 

assert the same claim petitioner previously alleged in Favor v. Vasquez, No. 1:16-cv-01444-

SKO.

1

That earlier filed petition was dismissed as a second or successive petition filed without 

leave of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on October 25, 2016. 

Accordingly, the court also dismisses this petition.

PRELIMINARY SCREENING

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the court to conduct a preliminary 

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court must dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly 

 

1

Favor v. Vasquez was originally filed as Favor v. Romg [sic].

Case 1:16-cv-01808-DAD-SKO Document 5 Filed 12/05/16 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

appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears 

that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 

440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

PETITION IS SUCCESSIVE

Petitioner has filed multiple prior petitions for writ of habeas corpus in this district and in 

the Central District of California. Many of these petitions seek to set aside petitioner’s 2008 

criminal convictions based on unsupported allegations made by petitioner concerning various 

individuals, including Michelle Rome,2 who is named as respondent in this action. In the petition

pending before the court in this case, petitioner attempts to attack that same 2008 conviction and 

characterizes his claim as being for “non-statutory relief.” (Doc. No. 1 at 2.)

A district court must dismiss any claim presented in a second or successive § 2254 

petition that was presented in a prior application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). In addition, a district 

court must dismiss any claim presented in a second or successive § 2254 petition unless 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 (2) the 

factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously with due diligence and 

the facts underlying the claim, if proven and reviewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would 

be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would 

have found petitioner guilty of the underlying offense, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). 

The circuit court of appeals, not the district court, must decide whether a second or 

successive petition satisfies the statutory requirements to proceed. 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(A) 

(“Before a second or successive petition 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 

 

2

 Petitioner has referred to Ms. Rome is various ways including Mychelle Romg, Michelle 

Romg, and Mychelle Rome. Context suggests that all of these similar names used by petitioner 

are intended to refer to the same individual.

Case 1:16-cv-01808-DAD-SKO Document 5 Filed 12/05/16 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

to consider the application”). This means that a petitioner may not file a second or successive 

petition in district court until he has obtained leave from the court of appeals. Felker v. Turpin, 

518 U.S. 651, 656–57 (1996). In the absence of an order from the appropriate circuit court, a 

district court lacks jurisdiction over the petition and must dismiss the second or successive 

petition. Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Petitioner has not obtained leave to file the above-captioned petition from the circuit 

court. As a result, this court must dismiss the petition.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, 

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is hereby dismissed without 

prejudice to its refiling by petitioner with a copy of an order from the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals authorizing him to file a second or successive petition; and 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01808-DAD-SKO Document 5 Filed 12/05/16 Page 3 of 3