Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00204/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00204-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abraham Isaac Tubbs
Petitioner
James A. Yates
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABRAHAM ISAAC TUBBS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JAMES A. YATES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 06-0204 OWW WMW HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR ABEYANCE OR STAY

[Doc. 13]

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO DISMISS [Doc. 16]

ORDER DISMISSING

PETITION AS

UNAUTHORIZED SECOND

OR SUCCESSIVE PETITION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this court. The petition challenges Petitioner’s April 1, 1997

convictions.

On February 27, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for a stay or abeyance of this case,

stating that he currently has a writ pending in the California Supreme Court which raises an

issue concerning an alleged breach of a March 23, 1979 plea bargain agreement. Petitioner

Case 1:06-cv-00204-OWW -WMW Document 19 Filed 06/05/07 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

claims that it is necessary for him to bring this claim in a single petition along with the issue

raised here.

On May 16, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the present petition on the

ground that it is an unauthorized second or successive petition. Respondent correctly states

that prior to filing the present petition, Petitioner filed in this court a petition challenging the

same convictions and sentence. In that case, Tubbs v. Ayers, 1:99-CV-05155 AWI HGB,

judgment was entered on November 17, 1999, denying the petition on the merits. In addition,

the court finds that Petitioner filed another habeas corpus petition in this court challenging

the same convictions. That petition was dismissed as an authorized second or successive

petition by order entered March 13, 2000. Tubbs v. Ayers, 1:99-CV-6125 AWI DLB P. 

Under AEDPA's "gatekeeping" provisions, an applicant seeking to file a second or

successive petition must obtain from the appropriate court of appeals an order authorizing the

district court to consider the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Section 2244(b)(2)

provides that 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 unless a court of

appeals may grant such an order only upon a showing that: 

(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 underling the claim, if proven and viewed in the light

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

clear and convincing evidence that, but for 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). 

The court finds that the present petition is an unauthorized second or successive

petition challenging the same convictions which Petitioner has challenged twice before

through federal habeas corpus petitions. Accordingly, it must be dismissed.

Case 1:06-cv-00204-OWW -WMW Document 19 Filed 06/05/07 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

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) Petitioner’s motion for a stay of this petition is DENIED as moot;

2) Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

3) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice to

Petitioner’s right to refile the petition should he obtain proper authorization from the

Court of Appeals;

4) The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this

case.IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00204-OWW -WMW Document 19 Filed 06/05/07 Page 3 of 3