Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01198/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01198-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
D. Davies
Respondent
David Thatcher
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

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

In this action, Petitioner raises a single claim as to 2001 conviction in the Tulare County 

Superior Court for multiple counts of robbery with use of a deadly weapon and his sentence of 162 

years to life. In the course of conducting a preliminary screening of the petition, the Court noted that

Petitioner has previously filed a petition in this Court in case number 1:07-cv-00725-AWI-DLB. In 

that earlier matter, Petitioner challenged the same 2001 conviction that is the basis for the instant 

petition. In that earlier case, the Court dismissed the petition for violation of the one-year statute of 

limitations. (Doc. 22; 24). 

I. DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Review of Petition.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition 

DAVID THATCHER,

 Petitioner,

v.

D. DAVIES, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01198-JLT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS AS SECOND AND SUCCESSIVE

ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE 

FILED WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO 

ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE

Case 1:15-cv-01198-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 08/12/15 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

if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is 

not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The 

Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after 

an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.2001).

B. Successive Petitions. [§ 2254]

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 these new facts establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for the 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). 

However, it is not the district court that decides whether a second or successive petition meets 

these requirements that allow a petitioner to file a second or successive petition, but rather the Ninth 

Circuit. 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, Petitioner must obtain 

leave from the Ninth Circuit before he 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 second or successive 

petition unless the Court of Appeals has given Petitioner leave to file the petition because a district 

court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a second or successive petition. Pratt v. United States, 129 

F.3d 54, 57 (1st Cir. 1997); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 

117 S.Ct. 794 (1997); Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996).

Because the current petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the Antiterrorism

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) apply to Petitioner's current petition. Lindh v. 

Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997). Petitioner makes no showing that he has obtained prior leave from 

the Ninth Circuit to file this successive petition attacking his conviction. That being so, this Court has 

Case 1:15-cv-01198-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 08/12/15 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

no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed application for relief from that conviction under § 

2254 and must dismiss the petition. See Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1277; Nunez, 96 F.3d at 991. If 

Petitioner desires to proceed in pursuing this petition for writ of habeas corpus, he must first obtain 

leave of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3). It is the Ninth Circuit that 

must determine whether Petitioner’s claim entitles him to file a successive petition in this court.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign a United States 

District judge to this case.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that [the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be 

DISMISSED as a second and successive petition.

This Findings and Recommendation is 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 21 days

after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, 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 Recommendation.” Replies to the Objections shall be 

served and filed within ten days after service of the Objections. The Court will then review the 

Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to 

file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01198-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 08/12/15 Page 3 of 3