Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00685/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00685-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gordon Andrew Douglas
Petitioner
Greg Lewis
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GORDON ANDREW DOUGLAS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

GREG LEWIS, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:13-cv-00685 KJM EFB (HC) 

ORDER 

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

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On August 21, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, this 

court determines the instant writ is not a successive petition and so declines to adopt the findings 

and recommendations. 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-00685-KJM-EFB Document 10 Filed 01/09/14 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

I. BACKGROUND 

 On April 28, 1997, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

challenging his convictions for murder and arson of an inhabited dwelling. Douglas v. Cambra, 

Civ. No. S-97-775 KJM JFM P, ECF No. 1.1 On March 18, 1998, the court stayed proceedings to 

allow petitioner to exhaust several claims in state court. ECF Nos. 18, 20. 

 Petitioner returned to this court on December 7, 1998 and the court lifted the stay. 

ECF Nos. 21, 23. On March 14, 2000, the magistrate judge recommended the petition be denied; 

the district court adopted this recommendation on August 18, 2000. ECF Nos. 28, 31. 

 Petitioner appealed and on July 20, 2004, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision 

in part and reversed it in part, remanding the case for further proceedings. ECF Nos. 34, 38. 

 On June 20, 2005, the magistrate judge recommended that the remaining claims be 

denied. ECF No. 50. On August 25, 2005, the district court declined to adopt the 

recommendation and referred the case back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. ECF 

No. 54. 

 On November 1, 2007, the magistrate judge recommended that petitioner’s arson 

conviction for a violation of California Penal Code § 451(b) be vacated and the case returned to 

state court with the direction to resentence petitioner as provided in California Penal Code 

§ 451(c). ECF No. 60. On February 25, 2008, the district court adopted this recommendation in 

full. ECF No. 67. 

 Plaintiff appealed and the Ninth Circuit directed this court to issue a conditional 

writ of habeas corpus. ECF Nos. 69, 76. On February 7, 2011, this court granted petitioner’s 

fifth claim, directing that petitioner’s conviction for violating Penal Code § 451(b) be vacated if 

the state declined to resentence petitioner under § 451(c) within ninety days. ECF No. 89. 

 On April 11, 2012, the parties filed a joint status report informing this court that 

the Sacramento County Superior Court judge assigned to the case concluded the superior court 

did not have jurisdiction to resentence petitioner and directed that the conviction under § 451(b) 

 1

 Further docket references in this section are to Civ. No. S-97-775 KJM-JFM P unless 

otherwise indicated. 

Case 2:13-cv-00685-KJM-EFB Document 10 Filed 01/09/14 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

be stricken. He further directed the clerk to prepare an amended abstract of judgment, effective 

September 2011, reflecting the murder conviction only with a notation that the arson conviction 

had been stricken. ECF No. 92 at 1-2. 

 Thereafter the parties filed a stipulation for dismissal of the habeas case, which the 

court adopted on April 24, 2012. ECF Nos. 94, 95. 

 On April 8, 2013, petitioner filed the instant petition, challenging the proceedings 

in superior court in response to this court’s order. Civ. No. S-13-685 KJM JFM (HC), ECF 

No. 1. Although the petition identifies the original date of conviction, it also reports the 

subsequent resentencing. Id. at 1, 7. The magistrate judge recommended the writ be denied as 

successive because petitioner had not asked the Ninth Circuit for an order authorizing the action. 

ECF No. 7. 

II. ANALYSIS 

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A), “[b]efore a second or successive application . . . 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.” The magistrate judge relied on this 

provision in recommending that the instant petition be dismissed. 

 In Magwood v. Patterson, the Supreme Court held that a subsequent habeas 

petition challenging a judgment entered after a resentencing was not second or successive, so long 

as the original petition had been filed before the resentencing and challenged the original 

judgment. 561 U.S. 320, 130 S. Ct. 2788, 2801 (2010). The Supreme Court said the term 

“‘second or successive must be interpreted with respect to the judgment challenged,” so when 

there is a new judgment intervening between the two habeas petitions, the latter petition is not 

“second or successive.” Id. at 2797, 2802. In Wentzell v. Neven, the Ninth Circuit relied on 

Magwood in concluding that a petition filed after the state court issued an amended judgment was 

not second or successive even though the amended judgment did not change the convictions or 

sentences on the charges that had not been vacated in the prior habeas proceedings. 674 F.3d 

1124, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 2336 (2013). 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-00685-KJM-EFB Document 10 Filed 01/09/14 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

 In the instant case petitioner is challenging the amended judgment issued in 

response to the earlier proceedings in this court. Because of this intervening judgment, the instant 

petition is not “second or successive.” 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 

 1. The court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations issued August 

21, 2013; and 

 2. The case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 

DATED: January 8, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00685-KJM-EFB Document 10 Filed 01/09/14 Page 4 of 4