Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00567/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00567-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martin Biter
Respondent
Guillermo Vera
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

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant petition was filed on April 21, 2014, challenging Petitioner’s 1997 murder 

conviction in the Tulare County Superior Court and resulting prison sentence of 42 years to life. (Doc. 

1, p. 1; p. 20). In the course of conducting a preliminary screening of the petition, it has come to the 

Court’s attention that Petitioner has previously filed a federal habeas petition in this Court challenging 

this same conviction. 

A review of the Court’s own docket reflects that Petitioner previously filed a federal habeas 

petition on October 1, 2004 in case no. 1:04-cv-06349-OWW-TAG (“04-6349”), challenging the same

1997 murder conviction in the Tulare County Superior Court and subsequent prison sentence. Case 

GUILLERMO VERA,

 Petitioner,

v.

MARTIN BITER, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00567-JLT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS AS SECOND AND SUCCESSIVE

ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE 

FILED WITHIN 21 DAYS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO 

ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE

Case 1:14-cv-00567-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 04/24/14 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

no. 04-6349 was dismissed as untimely on September 27, 2005. (Case no. 04-6349, Docs. 25 & 26). 

Petitioner subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, which denied a 

certificate of appealability on January 23, 2006. (Id., Doc. 31). 

DISCUSSION

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 

no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed application for relief from that 1997 conviction under 

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

Case 1:14-cv-00567-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 04/24/14 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

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

leave to do so with the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3).

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 10 court 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: April 24, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00567-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 04/24/14 Page 3 of 3