Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00569/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00569-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John R. Gholar, Sr.
Petitioner
James Yates
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

The Court takes judicial notice of the docket in Gholar v. Scribner, Case No. 1:03-CV-05371 AWI DLB HC. Fed. 1

R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9 Cir.1993); Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. th

626, 635 n.1 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699, (9 Cir.) (Judicial notice may be taken of court records). 

th

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN R. GHOLAR, SR., )

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

v. )

)

 )

JAMES YATES, Warden, )

 )

Respondent. )

____________________________________) 

1:08-CV-00569 OWW GSA HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF SUCCESSIVE

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)

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 April 24, 2008, Petitioner challenges his 2001 convictions in Kern

County Superior Court for committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of fourteen in violation

of Cal. Penal Code § 288(a) for which he received a sentence of thirty-five years to life. Review of

the Court’s dockets and files shows Petitioner has previously sought habeas relief with respect to this

conviction. In Gholar v. Scribner, Case No. 1:03-CV-05371 AWI DLB HC, the petition was denied 1

Case 1:08-cv-00569-OWW -GSA Document 5 Filed 05/07/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

on the merits. 

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 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).

Case 1:08-cv-00569-OWW -GSA Document 5 Filed 05/07/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

RECOMMENDATION

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

be DISMISSED as successive.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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 (plus three days for mailing) 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.” 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: May 6, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00569-OWW -GSA Document 5 Filed 05/07/08 Page 3 of 3