Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00785/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00785-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Koenig
Respondent
Monty Allen Mullins
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONTY ALLEN MULLINS,

Petitioner,

v.

KOENIG,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-00785-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 6

Petitioner, a California prisoner, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in Sonoma County, which is in this 

district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). He has also filed a motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis.

BACKGROUND

In October 2011, Mullins pled no contest in Sonoma County Superior Court to four counts 

of burglary, four counts of receiving stolen property, one count of attempted burglary, and one 

count of receiving a stolen vehicle. Mullins admitted that he was out on bail at the time he 

committed some of the offenses and that he had one prior felony strike. He was sentenced to 31 

years in state prison. Mullins filed a prior federal habeas action in this Court. Case No. 14-cv0858 JD. That petition was denied on the merits on October 13, 2005. Case No. 14-cv-0858 JD. 

Docket No. 19. 

DISCUSSION

“A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 

that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). This 

is the case unless,

Case 3:19-cv-00785-JD Document 11 Filed 03/15/19 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(A) 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

(B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been 

discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and

(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in 

light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by 

clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no 

reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the 

underlying offense.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).

“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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

Mullins presents a claim regarding the same underlying conviction that was reviewed in 

the prior petition. He argues that his restitution fine was excessive. Yet, he has not provided 

evidence that the Ninth Circuit has authorized a successive petition. The petition is dismissed but 

Mullins may refile the petition if he receives permission from the Ninth Circuit. In addition, it 

does not appear that this new claim was presented to the California Supreme Court. Any federal 

habeas claim must be exhausted by presenting it to the California Supreme Court.

CONCLUSION

1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 6) is GRANTED.

2. The petition is DISMISSED for the reasons set forth above and his motion to modify 

the sentence (Docket No. 1) is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

3. The Clerk shall close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2019

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00785-JD Document 11 Filed 03/15/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONTY ALLEN MULLINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KOENIG,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-00785-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on March 15, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Monty Allen Mullins ID: AL1169

Correctional Training Facility

P.O. Box 689

Soledad, CA 96960 

Dated: March 15, 2019

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:19-cv-00785-JD Document 11 Filed 03/15/19 Page 3 of 3