Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01222/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01222-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Kirkland
Respondent
Ramiro Gonzalez Ruiz
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMIRO GONZALEZ RUIZ,

Petitioner,

v.

RICHARD KIRKLAND, WARDEN,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1222 REC DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

In the petition filed on September 28, 2005, Petitioner challenges his 1983 conviction in

the Kern County Superior Court of two counts of first degree murder and one count of robbery. 

Review of the Court’s docket and the files in a habeas corpus proceeding previously filed by

Petitioner, (Ramiro Gonzalez Ruiz v. Steven Cambra, CV F 97-5654 REC HGB HC), shows that

in the previous proceeding Petitioner challenged his 1983 conviction of first degree murder and

robbery; the petition was denied, and judgment was filed on November 13, 1998. 

In the instant petition, Petitioner contends that there is a newly discovered ground of

prosecutorial misconduct revealing that he did not receive a fair trial. 

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

Case 1:05-cv-01222-REC-DLB Document 5 Filed 12/13/05 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

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 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,

which allow a petitioner to file a second or successive petition. 

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 his successive petition attacking the

conviction. That being so, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed

application for relief from that conviction under Section 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 bringing

this petition for writ of habeas corpus, he must file for leave to do so with the Ninth Circuit. See

28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3).

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas

Case 1:05-cv-01222-REC-DLB Document 5 Filed 12/13/05 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

corpus be DISMISSED as successive.

These Findings and Recommendations 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 Recommendations.” 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: December 13, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01222-REC-DLB Document 5 Filed 12/13/05 Page 3 of 3