Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04490/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04490-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Agustin Jesus Nevarez
Petitioner
People of the State of California
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AGUSTIN JESUS NEVAREZ,

Petitioner, 

v. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 15-cv-04490-PJH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Re: Dkt. No. 5 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He was ordered to show cause why this case should not 

be dismissed as successive. He has filed a response. 

DISCUSSION 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet 

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An 

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody 

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to 

the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules 

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the 

petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” 

Case 4:15-cv-04490-PJH Document 6 Filed 11/12/15 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 Californi

a

Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 

1970)). 

II. LEGAL CLAIMS 

Petitioner challenges a January 25, 2008, conviction from the Santa Clara County 

Superior Court. However, court records indicate that petitioner already filed a habeas 

petition in this court challenging the same conviction. See Nevarez v. Brenda Cash, 

Case No. 11-cv-0974-PJH. Petitioner was represented by counsel in that case and the 

petition was denied on the merits and was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. 

 “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, 

 (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). 

Petitioner has submitted a response but has failed to provide an order from the Ninth 

Circuit authorizing a new petition. The case is therefore dismissed. If petitioner obtains 

permission from the Ninth Circuit he may re-file the petition 

Case 4:15-cv-04490-PJH Document 6 Filed 11/12/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

Da

1. 

2. 

IT IS S

ated: Novem

Petitioner’s

The case is

SO ORDER

mber 12, 20

s motion for

s DISMISS

RED. 

015 

3

CONCLU

r appoint of

SED and a c

USION 

f counsel (D

certificate o

__

PH

Un

Docket No. 

of appealab

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

5) is DENI

bility is DEN

_________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

ED. 

NIED. 

______

N

udge 

Case 4:15-cv-04490-PJH Document 6 Filed 11/12/15 Page 3 of 3