Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00049/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00049-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jonny Nelson Nixon
Petitioner
Superior Court of Kern
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONNY NELSON NIXON,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00049-SAB-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT 

JUDGE

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

I.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts

requires preliminary review of a habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition 

before the respondent is ordered to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any 

attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” See McFarland v. 

Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994).

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, 

Case 1:20-cv-00049-DAD-SAB Document 4 Filed 01/27/20 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

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 factfinder 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. 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 the 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. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007).

In the instant petition, Petitioner challenges his 2005 Kern County Superior Court 

conviction for failure to register as a sex offender for which he was sentenced to an 

imprisonment term of twenty-five years to life. (ECF No. 1 at 2).1 Petitioner previously filed a 

federal habeas petition in this Court challenging the same conviction, and the petition was 

dismissed as untimely. See Nixon v. Sherman, No. 1:14-cv-00525-LJO-SAB.

2 Accordingly, the 

Court finds that the instant petition is “second or successive” under § 2244(b). See McNabb v. 

Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding “dismissal of a first habeas petition for 

untimeliness presents a ‘permanent and incurable’ bar to federal review of the underlying 

claims,” and thus renders subsequent petitions “second or successive”). Petitioner makes no 

showing that he has obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file this petition. As Petitioner 

has not obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file this successive petition, this Court has 

no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s renewed application for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and 

must dismiss the petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. at 157.

 

1 Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

2 The Court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 

(9th Cir. 1980).

Case 1:20-cv-00049-DAD-SAB Document 4 Filed 01/27/20 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

II.

RECOMMENDATION & ORDER

Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 

habeas corpus be DISMISSED. 

Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly ASSIGN this action to a District 

Judge.

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 THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner 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.” The assigned 

District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00049-DAD-SAB Document 4 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 3