Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00351/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00351-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth A. Jackson
Petitioner
G. Matteson
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH A. JACKSON,

Petitioner,

v.

G. MATTESON,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00351-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

ECF No. 1

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 

CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner Kenneth A. Jackson, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. This matter is before us for preliminary review 

under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. See R. Governing § 2254 Cases 4; 28 

U.S.C. § 2243. Under Rule 4, a district court must dismiss a habeas petition if it “plainly 

appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 

(9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). Courts have “an active 

role in summarily disposing of facially defective habeas petitions” under Rule 4. Ross v. 

Williams, 896 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Petitioner makes two claims for 

relief: (1) that a felony complaint is the improper vehicle for initiating a criminal case in 

California and (2) that there was insufficient evidence at trial to convict petitioner of arson and 

conspiracy. ECF No. 1 at 16, 35. 

Case 1:20-cv-00351-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 5
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

Discussion

A federal court has an independent duty to examine its jurisdiction. See Kwai Fun Wong 

v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2013). “Under the [Antiterrorism and Effective Death 

Penalty Act’s] second or successive petition provisions, any claim that has been adjudicated in a 

previous petition must be dismissed.” Hall v. Haws, 861 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1)). “Likewise, a claim presented in a second or successive petition that was 

not presented in a prior application ‘shall be dismissed unless’ certain criteria are met.” Gonzalez 

v. Sherman, 873 F.3d 763, 767 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)). New claims in a 

successive petition must be dismissed unless the petitioner can show that the claims rely on (1) a 

new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme 

Court, or (2) a new fact not previously discoverable through due diligence. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B). Even if a petitioner meets one of these requirements, he must also show 

that “no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the underlying offense” 

based on the facts underlying the claim, but for constitutional error. See id. The Court of 

Appeals, not a district court, decides whether a successive petition meets these requirements. 

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. 

See also Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-57 (1996). Failure to obtain authorization from the 

appropriate Court of Appeals is a jurisdictional defect, and the district court presented with an 

unauthorized successive petition must dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. See Burton v. Stewart, 

549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007).

On December 8, 2017, petitioner sought habeas relief in this court from the same 

conviction at issue in the instant petition. See Pet. at 1, Jackson v. Arnold, No. 1:17-cv-01670-

LJO-JDP (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2019) [hereinafter Jackson I].

1

 Petitioner argued, inter alia, that a 

 

1 Petitioner has also unsuccessfully sought habeas relief in this court on two other occasions. On 

August 24, 2018, petitioner sought relief from his prison’s calculation of his parole credits; the 

Case 1:20-cv-00351-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 5
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

felony complaint is an improper vehicle for initiating a criminal case in California. Id. We found 

the petition meritless and recommended its dismissal. F&R at 1-4, Jackson I. The petition was 

dismissed on December 4, 2019. Order Adopting F&R at 1, Jackson I. In the instant petition, he 

again argues that a felony complaint is the improper vehicle for initiating a criminal case in 

California and raises a second claim of insufficient evidence. See ECF No. 1 at 16, 35. 

Petitioner has not presented authorization from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit to file a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); this alone warrants 

dismissal. Even if petitioner were to seek Ninth Circuit authorization, denial would be almost 

certain because his first claim, that his felony complaint was improper, has already been denied 

on the merits in his previous habeas petition and his second claim, insufficient evidence, does not 

meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B). Petitioner has not presented any proof 

of new evidence in support of his insufficient evidence claim, has not identified any new U.S. 

Supreme Court case law that supports his position, and has not shown that no reasonable 

factfinder would have found him guilty, but for the alleged constitutional error. We recommend 

dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.2

Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district 

court’s denial of a petition; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing Section 2254 Cases 

requires a District Court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order 

adverse to a petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 

 

petition was summarily dismissed as non-cognizable. See Jackson v. Neuschmid, No. 2:18-cv02319-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2019). On March 18, 2019, petitioner sought relief on the 

same grounds as those in the instant petition. See Jackson v. Neuschmid, No. 1:19-cv-00357-

LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2019). This petition was dismissed on procedural grounds. Id.

2 Additionally, the petition appears untimely. Under AEDPA, petitioners seeking habeas relief 

under § 2254 must comply with a one-year statute of limitations. For most habeas petitioners, the 

one-year clock starts to run on “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of 

direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 42 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). 

Petitioner’s most recent state post-conviction application challenging his underlying conviction 

was denied review on October 24, 2018. He filed his federal petition on March 6, 2020. 

Case 1:20-cv-00351-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 04/09/20 Page 3 of 5
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

4

1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds 

without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of 

appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim 

of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

“Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of 

the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the 

petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. 

Here, reasonable jurists would not find our conclusion debatable or conclude that 

petitioner should proceed further. Thus, the court should decline to issue a certificate of 

appealability.

Findings and Recommendations

We recommend that the petition be dismissed and that the court decline to issue a 

certificate of appealability. We submit the findings and recommendations to the U.S. District 

Court judge who will be assigned to the case under 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 

thirty days of the service of the findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 

objections to the findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. 

That document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” The assigned district judge will then review the findings and 

recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Order

The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a district judge for the purpose of 

reviewing these findings and recommendations.

Case 1:20-cv-00351-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 04/09/20 Page 4 of 5
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

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:20-cv-00351-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 04/09/20 Page 5 of 5