Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00659/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00659-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leroy E. Kendall
Petitioner
Cynthia Tampkins
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEROY E. KENDALL,

Petitioner,

v.

CYNTHIA TAMPKINS,

Respondent.

No. 1:16-cv-00659-AWI-SKO HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS PETITION AS UNTIMELY 

AND SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE

(Doc. 11)

Petitioner Leroy E. Kendall is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent Cynthia Tampkins moves to dismiss 

the petition, contending that it is (1) untimely; (2) successive; and (3) unexhausted. Because the 

petition is both untimely and second or successive, the undersigned recommends that the Court 

dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction and not address Respondent’s detailed analysis of why 

the petition is unexhausted.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A Kern County Superior Court jury convicted Petitioner of second degree attempted 

murder, assault with a deadly weapon, inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, and battery on a 

///

Case 1:16-cv-00659-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 6
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

spouse, and found multiple sentencing enhancements to be true. On August 9, 2010, the trial 

court sentenced Petitioner to a determinate sentence of thirteen years.

Petitioner filed a direct appeal to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the 

judgment on September 26, 2012. The California Supreme Court denied two petitions for review 

on January 16, 2013. Petitioner filed no post-conviction collateral challenges in state court.

On February 8, 2013, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Kendall v. Tampkins (1:13-cv-00209-LJO-JLT HC). This Court denied the 

petition on October 30, 2015. Petitioner filed a second § 2254 petition on January 25, 2016. 

Kendall v. Tampkins (1:16-cv-00659-DAD-MJS HC). On May 4, 2016, the Court denied the 

petition as a second or successive petition. On May 11, 2016, Petitioner filed the abovecaptioned petition.

II. Second or Successive Petition 

Because Petitioner filed this petition after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the 

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) apply. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 

U.S. 320, 327 (1997). When AEDPA applies, 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 the 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) and (B).

The circuit court of appeals, not the district court, must decide whether a second or 

successive petition satisfies the statutory requirements to proceed. 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(A) 

///

Case 1:16-cv-00659-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 6
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

("Before a second or successive petition 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"). This means that a petitioner may not file a second or successive 

petition in district court until he has obtained leave from the court of appeals. Felker v. Turpin, 

518 U.S. 651, 656-57 (1996). In the absence of an order from the appropriate circuit court, a 

district court lacks jurisdiction over the petition and must dismiss the second or successive 

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

Petitioner presents no indication that he has obtained an order from the Ninth Circuit 

authorizing the filing of yet another successive petition attacking the 1998 judgment of 

resentencing. As a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition and must dismiss 

it. See Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1277.

III. Timeliness of the Pending Petition

AEDPA provides a one-year period of limitation in which a petitioner may file a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The limitations period is measured from the 

latest of:

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by conclusion 

of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such 

review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing a State action in 

violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is 

removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such state 

action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was 

initially recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively 

applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or 

claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise 

of due diligence.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

Case 1:16-cv-00659-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 11/07/16 Page 3 of 6
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 this case, direct review in the State of California ended January 16, 2013, when the 

California Supreme Court denied review. The federal statutory limitation period began on 

February 26, 2013, following the expiration of the 40-day period in which to seek review in the 

California Supreme Court. Accordingly, the one-year statutory limitation period expired on 

February 27, 2014. Even if this action were not barred as a second or successive petition, the 

above-captioned petition, filed May 11, 2016, would be barred as untimely.

IV. Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 

district court's denial of his petition, but may only appeal in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a 

certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 

before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by 

the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding 

to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for 

commitment or trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the 

United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention pending 

removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) 

only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-00659-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 11/07/16 Page 4 of 6
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

5

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall 

indicate which specific issues or issues satisfy the showing required by 

paragraph (2).

If a court denies a habeas petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability 

"if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims 

or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Although the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate 

"something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . 

part." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.

Reasonable jurists would not find the Court's determination that it lacks jurisdiction to 

consider the above-captioned habeas petition to be debatable or wrong. Accordingly, the Court 

should decline to issue a certificate of appealability.

V. Conclusion and Recommendation

The undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court dismiss the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus for lack of jurisdiction, enter judgment for Respondent, and decline to issue a certificate of 

appealability.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C ' 636(b)(1). Within thirty 

(30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, either party may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate 

Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Replies to the objections, if any, shall be served and 

filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure

to file objections within the specified time may constitute waiver of the right to appeal the District 

Case 1:16-cv-00659-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 11/07/16 Page 5 of 6
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

6

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: November 4, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00659-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 11/07/16 Page 6 of 6