Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02628/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02628-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Davis
Respondent
Teddino Johnson
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TEDDINO JOHNSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

RONALD DAVIS, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-2628-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 The court has reviewed the petition as required by Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, and finds that the petition is second or successive and must 

therefore be dismissed. 

 A petition is second or successive if it makes “claims contesting the same custody 

imposed by the same judgment of a state court” that the petitioner previously challenged, and on 

which the federal court issued a decision on the merits. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007); 

see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-86 (2000). Before filing a second or successive 

petition in a district court, a petitioner must obtain from the appellate court “an order authorizing 

the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Without an order from 

 1

 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to petitioner’s consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; 

see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

Case 2:15-cv-02628-EFB Document 6 Filed 05/17/16 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

the appellate court, the district court is without jurisdiction to consider a second or successive 

petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. 147. 

 In the present action, petitioner challenges his July 26, 2000 judgment of conviction 

entered in the Sacramento County Superior Court in case number 98F09884.2 ECF No. 1 at 1.3 

The court has examined its records, and finds that petitioner challenged the same judgment of 

conviction in an earlier action. Specifically, in Jonson v. Woodford, No. 2:03-cv-1281-LKKKJM-P (E.D. Cal.), the court considered petitioner’s challenge to the same judgment of 

conviction. See Johnson, ECF No. 13 (magistrate judge’s August 29, 2006 findings and 

recommendations to deny petition on the merits); ECF No. 17 (district judge’s January 8, 2007 

order adopting findings and recommendations and denying petitioner’s application for a writ of 

habeas corpus); see also Johnson v. Chappell, NO. 2:14-cv-2513-KJN (Dec. 15, 2014, E.D. Cal.), 

ECF No. 6 (order dismissing as successive petitioner’s December 4, 2014 application for a writ of 

habeas corpus attacking the 2000 conviction and sentence). Since petitioner challenges the same 

judgment now that he previously challenged and which was adjudicated on the merits, the petition 

now pending is second or successive. 

Petitioner offers no evidence that the appellate court has authorized this court to consider 

a second or successive petition. Since petitioner has not demonstrated that the appellate court has 

authorized this court to consider a second or successive petition, this action must be dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction. See Burton, 549 U.S. 147; Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (per curiam). 

///// 

///// 

///// 

 2

 Petitioner was convicted on July 26, 2000, for violation of California Health & Safety 

Code § 11350(a) and sentenced to 25-years to life under the “three-strikes” law. ECF No. 1 at 1. 

The instant challenge appears related to the Superior Court’s December 15, 2014 denial of his 

petition for re-designation of sentence in accordance with Proposition 47. See id. at 3, 40. 

3

 For ease of reference, all references to page numbers in the petition are to those assigned 

via the court’s electronic filing system. 

Case 2:15-cv-02628-EFB Document 6 Filed 05/17/16 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

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction 

and the court declines to issue a certificate of appealabilty. 

DATED: May 16, 2016.

Case 2:15-cv-02628-EFB Document 6 Filed 05/17/16 Page 3 of 3