Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01433/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01433-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Biter
Respondent
Kevin Laquan Trice
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss 

the petition on the grounds that it is successive within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) and 

was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Doc. 13. 

Petitioner did not file an opposition.

I. 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). A 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 

constitutional right, made retroactive by the United States Supreme Court 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 

KEVIN LAQUAN TRICE,

Petitioner,

v.

MARTIN BITER, Warden,

Respondent.

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1433-DAD-SMS (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THE

PETITION 

 

(Doc. 13)

Case 1:15-cv-01433-DAD-SMS Document 15 Filed 04/13/16 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

these requirements; the Petitioner must first file a motion with the appropriate court of appeals to 

be authorized to file a second or successive petition with the district court. 

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, 656-57 (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. Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Because the current petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the 

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 apply to Petitioner's current petition. Lindh 

v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997). Petitioner has previously sought habeas relief in this district. 

See Trice v. Biter, 1:11-cv-00951 LJO-SKO. The prior petition was denied on March 3, 2015.

(1:11-cv-00951, Doc. 66). Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and his request for a certificate of 

appealability was denied by the Ninth Circuit on March 31, 2016. (1:11-cv-00951, Doc. 80.) 

Petitioner filed the instant petition on September 21, 2015. Doc. 1. It raises claims that were not 

present in the prior petition. However, this Court may not consider a successive petition without 

leave from the Ninth Circuit. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he applied for or obtained leave 

from the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive petition. Therefore, this Court has no 

jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed application for relief under Section 2254 and must 

dismiss the petition. See Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1277. 

I. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that:

Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus be GRANTED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Dale A. Drozd, 

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 

Case 1:15-cv-01433-DAD-SMS Document 15 Filed 04/13/16 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

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written 

objections with the Court, serving 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: April 13, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01433-DAD-SMS Document 15 Filed 04/13/16 Page 3 of 3