Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01357/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01357-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joe A. Lizarrago
Respondent
Jose Perez
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE PEREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

JOE A. LIZARRAGO,

Respondent.

No. 2:14-cv-1357 JAM DAD P

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 

the costs of suit. Accordingly, the court will grant petitioner’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

BACKGROUND

In his petition, petitioner challenges a 2001 judgment of conviction entered against him by 

the San Joaquin County Superior Court for corporal injury on a cohabitant, assault with a deadly 

weapon, and making criminal threats. The trial court found that petitioner had suffered two prior 

serious felony convictions and sentenced petitioner to eighty years to life in state prison. 

Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his judgment of conviction. (Pet. at 1-2 & Attachs.)

/////

Case 2:14-cv-01357-JAM-DAD Document 8 Filed 09/29/14 Page 1 of 4
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

On July 3, 2007, petitioner filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court 

challenging this same 2001 judgment of conviction and sentence. See Perez v. Adams, No. 2:07-

cv-1344 MCE GGH P.1 In that case, Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred 

be granted. On May 8, 2009, District Judge Morrison C. England adopted those findings and 

recommendations in full, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed petitioner habeas

action with prejudice. Petitioner appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

On June 27, 2011, petitioner filed a second federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in 

this court again challenging his 2001 judgment of conviction and sentence. See Perez v. 

Unknown, No. 2:11-cv-1729 MCE GGH P. In this second case, Magistrate Judge Hollows issued 

findings and recommendations, recommending that petitioner’s successive petition be dismissed 

without prejudice to its refiling with a copy of an order from the Ninth Circuit authorizing 

petitioner to file a successive petition. On August 18, 2011, District Judge England adopted the 

findings and recommendations in full and dismissed the action without prejudice.

ANALYSIS

“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. . . .” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(2). This is the case 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 underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of 

the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear 

and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no 

reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the 

underlying offense. 

/////

 

1 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 

500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

Case 2:14-cv-01357-JAM-DAD Document 8 Filed 09/29/14 Page 2 of 4
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

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). Before filing a second or successive petition 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

As noted above, the court’s own records reveal that petitioner previously filed two

separate petitions for writ of habeas corpus in this court attacking the same state court conviction 

and sentence that he now seeks to challenge in this federal habeas proceeding. In his first 

previously-filed habeas action, this court dismissed petitioner’s application for writ of habeas 

corpus with prejudice because it was time-barred. See Perez v. Adams, No. 2:07-cv-1344 MCE 

GGH P. For purposes of 28 U.SC. § 2243(b)(3), the court dismissed petitioner’s previously-filed 

action on the merits, and therefore, petitioner was required to obtain authorization from the Ninth 

Circuit before filing his petition in this court. See McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029-30 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (“failure to comply with the statute of limitations renders subsequent petitions second 

or successive for purposes of the AEDPA”). In his second previously-filed habeas action, this 

court dismissed petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus as second or successive. 

In this case too, the court will recommend that the pending petition be dismissed without 

prejudice to its refiling with a copy of an order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

authorizing petitioner to file a second or successive federal habeas petition. To date, petitioner 

has not obtained an order from the Ninth Circuit authorizing the district court to consider a 

second or successive petition as required to proceed with this habeas action. Accordingly, this 

court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the now pending petition. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 

147, 152 (2007). 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 

(Doc. No. 2) is granted.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice to its 

refiling with a copy of an order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing petitioner to 

file a second or successive petition; and

Case 2:14-cv-01357-JAM-DAD Document 8 Filed 09/29/14 Page 3 of 4
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

2. This action be closed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is 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). 

In any objections he elects to file, petitioner may address whether a certificate of 

appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 

11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a 

certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant).

Dated: September 26, 2014

DAD:9

pere1357.156

Case 2:14-cv-01357-JAM-DAD Document 8 Filed 09/29/14 Page 4 of 4