Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01504/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01504-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mike C. Kramer
Respondent
Johnney Ramey
Petitioner

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNEY RAMEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

MIKE C. KRAMER, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:05-cv-01504-LJO WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 9]

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner was convicted in Fresno County Superior Court of two counts of second

degree robbery and possession of paraphernalia used for smoking a controlled substance. 

The jury found true the allegation that Petition used a knife in the commission of the robbery. 

The trial court found that Petitioner had suffered a prior serious felony conviction, and

Case 1:05-cv-01504-OWW -WMW Document 16 Filed 01/15/08 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

sentenced Petitioner to an aggregate state prison term of 34 years and 4 months to life. 

Petitioner filed a direct appeal with the California Court of Appeal. On January 4,

1996, Petitioner filed a notice of dismissal of appeal and request for dismissal. On January 9,

1996, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. 

On May 21, 1998, the California Department of Corrections sent a letter to the Fresno

County Superior Court pointing out a possible error in the calculation of Petitioner’s

sentence. On July 29, 1998, the Fresno County Superior Court resentenced Petitioner to a

determinate state prison term of 66 years to life. Petitioner appealed. On November 8, 1999,

the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the

California Supreme Court, which the court denied on January 25, 2000.

Petitioner filed a total of thirty-three pro se state post-conviction collateral

challenges. None of these state habeas corpus petitions resulted in relief: all were denied.

Petitioner filed a prior federal habeas corpus petition in this court challenging the

same conviction on September 16, 1998. Ramey v. Lewis, 1:98cv-06047 OWW HGB. This

petition was dismissed with prejudice on September 4, 2003, as untimely. On December 29,

2003, the Ninth Circuit granted Petitioner’s application for certificate of appealability with

respect to whether this court properly denied Petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition as

untimely. On September 6, 2006, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of this court.

DISCUSSION

Respondent moves to dismiss this petition on two grounds. First, Respondent

contends that this is an unauthorized second or successive petition. Second, Respondent

contends that this petition is barred by the statute of limitations. The court finds that the

motion to dismiss is meritorious on both grounds.

In moving to dismiss the present petition as an unauthorized second or successive

petition, Respondent correctly argues that Petitioner has previously challenged the same

conviction in Ramey v. Lewis, 1:98cv-06047 OWW HGB. Petitioner does not dispute this

Case 1:05-cv-01504-OWW -WMW Document 16 Filed 01/15/08 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

fact in his response to the motion to dismiss, but rather simply argues that he has meritorious

issues to present to the court.

Under AEDPA's "gatekeeping" provisions, an applicant seeking to file a second or

successive petition must obtain from the appropriate court of appeals an order authorizing the

district court to consider the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Section 2244(b)(2)

provides that 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 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 underling the claim, if proven and viewed in the

light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

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). In this case it is undisputed that this is a second or

successive petition and that Petitioner has not obtained the requisite order from the Court of

Appeals. Accordingly, this court must dismiss the petition under Section 2244.

Second, Respondent moves to dismiss this petition as barred by the statute of

limitations. In response, Petitioner argues that his claim is meritorious and therefore not time

barred.

The AEDPA imposes a one year period of limitation on petitioners seeking to file a

federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). As amended,

Section 2244, subdivision (d) reads: 

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of

habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State

court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of –

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion

Case 1:05-cv-01504-OWW -WMW Document 16 Filed 01/15/08 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

of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created

by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is

removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the

Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 

(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or

claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under

this subsection. 

In this case, as Respondent argues, both this court and the Ninth Circuit have

determined that Petitioner’s prior federal habeas corpus petition filed September 16, 1998,

was untimely. Petitioner’s current petition, filed seven years later on November 23, 2005,

challenging the same conviction, is all the more untimely. The court’s examination of the

petition and Petitioner’s opposition does not reveal the allegation of any new facts which

would make the current petition timely where the prior petition was not. Accordingly, the

court finds that under the rationale set forth by this court and the Ninth Circuit in Petitioner’s

prior case, the present petition is untimely and barred by the statute of limitations.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows:

1) that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED;

2) that this action be DISMISSED as an unauthorized second or successive petition and

as barred by the statute of limitations;

3) that the Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close

this case.

Case 1:05-cv-01504-OWW -WMW Document 16 Filed 01/15/08 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

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, 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 (10) court days (plus three days if served by

mail) 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 District Court’s order. Martinez

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01504-OWW -WMW Document 16 Filed 01/15/08 Page 5 of 5