Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00134/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00134-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
B. Cates
Defendant
Alejandro Sanchez
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

ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

B. CATES,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00134-KES-SAB-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS PETITION

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 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.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

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 1:24-cv-00134-KES-SAB Document 11 Filed 04/17/24 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–

57 (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 Merced County Superior Court conviction 

for attempted murder. (ECF No. 1 at 1.1) Petitioner previously filed a federal habeas petition in 

this Court challenging the same conviction, and that petition was summarily dismissed because 

the claims clearly lacked merit. See Sanchez v. Spearman, No. 1:17-cv-00723-AWI-JLT.

2 The 

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

Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 2009) (“A habeas petition is second or successive only if it 

raises claims that were or could have been adjudicated on the merits. A disposition is ‘on the 

merits’ if the district court either considers and rejects the claims or determines that the 

underlying claim will not be considered by a federal court.”). 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 pagination 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 1:24-cv-00134-KES-SAB Document 11 Filed 04/17/24 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

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 

habeas corpus be DISMISSED as an unauthorized successive petition. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 

Court Judge, 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). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 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: April 17, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00134-KES-SAB Document 11 Filed 04/17/24 Page 3 of 3