Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01975/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01975-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. Hedgpeth
Respondent
Michael James
Petitioner

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL JAMES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

A. HEDGPETH, Warden, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:10-cv—01975-LJO-SKO-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS PETITION AS SUCCESSIVE

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)

(Doc. 1) AND TO DECLINE TO ISSUE

A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

DEADLINE FOR OBJECTIONS:

THIRTY (30) DAYS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter has been referred to the

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local

Rules 302 and 304. Pending before the Court is the petition of

204 pages, including exhibits, filed on October 21, 2010. 

I. Screening the Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United

States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make

a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly

1

Case 1:10-cv-01975-LJO-SKO Document 6 Filed 01/04/11 Page 1 of 8
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

appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....”

Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.

1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.

1990). Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all

grounds of relief available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts

supporting each ground; and 3) state the relief requested. 

Notice pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must

state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional

error. Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption;

O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting Blackledge v.

Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977)). Allegations in a petition

that are vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to

summary dismissal. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th

Cir. 1990).

Further, the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas

corpus either on its own motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to

the respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the

petition has been filed. Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule

8, 1976 Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43

(9th Cir. 2001).

II. Background

Petitioner is an inmate of Salinas Valley State Prison

(SVSP) serving a sentence of twenty-six (26) years to life

imposed in the Kern County Superior Court on May 29, 2002, for

conspiracy and attempted murder. (Pet. 1, 7.) 

The present petition is not the first petition filed with

respect to the judgment pursuant to which Petitioner is

2

Case 1:10-cv-01975-LJO-SKO Document 6 Filed 01/04/11 Page 2 of 8
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

incarcerated. The Court may take judicial notice of court

records. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso,

989 F.2d 331, 333 (9 Cir. 1993); Valerio v. Boise Cascade th

Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d

699 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court will take judicial notice of its

own dockets. 

On September 4, 2009, a second amended habeas petition

challenging Petitioner’s 2002 conspiracy and attempt judgment was

denied by this Court on the merits in Michael James v. Darral

Adams, 1:07-cv-01110-JMD-HC. (Docs. 37, 38.) The docket of that

proceeding reflects that a notice of appeal from this Court’s

judgment was filed on October 5, 2009 (Doc. 40), and the appeal

is presently pending.

III. Successive Petition 

Because the petition in the present case was filed after the

enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996 (AEDPA), the AEDPA applies to the petition. Lindh v.

Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1008

(1997); Furman v. Wood, 190 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999).

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 the new facts establish by clear and

convincing evidence that but for the constitutional error, no

reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of

3

Case 1:10-cv-01975-LJO-SKO Document 6 Filed 01/04/11 Page 3 of 8
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

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, which

allow a petitioner to file a second or successive petition. 

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.” In other words, a petitioner must obtain leave

from the Ninth Circuit before he or she can file a second or

successive petition in district court. See Felker v. Turpin, 518

U.S. 651, 656-657 (1996). This Court must dismiss any claim

presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application

under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application

unless the Court of Appeals has given Petitioner leave to file

the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). This limitation has been

characterized as jurisdictional. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S.

147, 152 (2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th

Cir. 2001).

A disposition is “on the merits” if the district court

either considered and rejected the claim, or determined that the

underlying claim would not be considered by a federal court. 

McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing

Howard v. Lewis, 905 F.2d 1318, 1322 (9th Cir. 1990)). A claim

is successive within the meaning of § 2244(b) if the basic thrust

or gravamen of the legal claim is the same, regardless of whether

the basic claim is supported by new and different legal

arguments. Further, identical grounds may often be proved by

4

Case 1:10-cv-01975-LJO-SKO Document 6 Filed 01/04/11 Page 4 of 8
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

different factual allegations. Babbitt v. Woodford, 177 F.3d

744, 746 (9th Cir. 1999).

Here, the first petition concerning the Kings County

judgment was denied on the merits. 

The Court has considered the pendency of an appeal from the

judgment rendered by this Court on the first petition. It is

established that if a new petition is filed when a previous

habeas petition is still pending before the district court

without a decision having been rendered, then the new petition

should be construed as a motion to amend the pending petition. 

Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 2008). However, the

Woods holding will not be extended to a situation where the

district court has ruled on the initial petition, and proceedings

have begun in the Court of Appeals. Beaty v. Schriro, 554 F.3d

780, 782-83 & n.1 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, -- U.S. --, 130

S.Ct. 364, 175 L.Ed.2d 50 (2009). The petition presently before

the Court is thus considered a successive petition because the

district court entered judgment and denied the first petition on

the merits, and the appeal is pending in the Ninth Circuit. Id.

Petitioner makes no showing that he has obtained prior leave

from the Ninth Circuit to file his successive petition attacking

the conviction. Accordingly, this court has no jurisdiction to

consider Petitioner’s renewed application for relief from that

conviction under section 2254 and must dismiss the petition. 

See, Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-57; Burton v. Stewart,

549 U.S. 147, 152; Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274. If

Petitioner desires to proceed in bringing this petition for writ

of habeas corpus, he must file for leave to do so with the Ninth

5

Case 1:10-cv-01975-LJO-SKO Document 6 Filed 01/04/11 Page 5 of 8
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

Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).

IV. Certificate of Appealability

Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the Court of Appeals

from the final order in a habeas proceeding in which the

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state

court. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

U.S. 322, 336 (2003). A certificate of appealability may issue

only if the applicant makes a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Under this

standard, a petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could

debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a

different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to

deserve encouragement to proceed further. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. at 336 (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000)). A certificate should issue if the Petitioner shows that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

district court was correct in any procedural ruling. Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). 

In determining this issue, a court conducts an overview of

the claims in the habeas petition, generally assesses their

merits, and determines whether the resolution was wrong or

debatable among jurists of reason. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

U.S. at 336-37. It is necessary for an applicant to show more

than an absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith;

however, it is not necessary for an applicant to show that the

6

Case 1:10-cv-01975-LJO-SKO Document 6 Filed 01/04/11 Page 6 of 8
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

appeal will succeed. Id. at 338. 

A district court must issue or deny a certificate of

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the

applicant. Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Here, Petitioner has not demonstrated that jurists of reason

would find it debatable whether or not the petition states a

valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Petitioner

has not made the substantial showing required for issuance of a

certificate of appealability.

V. Recommendation 

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:

1) The petition be DISMISSED as successive; and

2) The Court DECLINE to issue a certificate of

appealability; and 

3) The Clerk be DIRECTED to close this action because the

dismissal will terminate the action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant

to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after

being served with a copy, any party may file written objections

with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within fourteen (14) days (plus three (3) days if

served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will

then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

7

Case 1:10-cv-01975-LJO-SKO Document 6 Filed 01/04/11 Page 7 of 8
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

636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2011 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

Case 1:10-cv-01975-LJO-SKO Document 6 Filed 01/04/11 Page 8 of 8