Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00096/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00096-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allen Deshaun Farmer
Petitioner
J. Soto
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

ALLEN DESHAUN FARMER,

Petitioner,

v.

J. SOTO,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00096-EPG-HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner Allen Deshaun Farmer is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the instant petition, Petitioner challenges 

his 1998 convictions in the Madera County Superior Court for murder and three counts of 

attempted robbery on various due process and ineffective assistance of counsel grounds. As 

Petitioner has previously sought federal habeas relief with respect to the challenged convictions,

the Court finds that dismissal of the petition is warranted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) 

because it is an unauthorized successive petition.

I.

BACKGROUND

On January 13, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the 

Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1). The matter was then transferred to this district. 

(ECF No. 4). On February 17, 2016, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the instant 

Case 1:16-cv-00096-EPG Document 14 Filed 04/28/16 Page 1 of 5
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

petition should not be dismissed as an unauthorized successive petition. (ECF No. 9). On April 

20, 2016, the Court received Petitioner’s response to the order to show cause. (ECF No. 13). 

Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge to conduct all 

proceedings in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 8).

II.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 

habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 

to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” 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.

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, a 

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 a petitioner 

leave to file the petition because a district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a second or 

successive petition. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007).

In the instant petition, Petitioner challenges his 1998 convictions in the Madera County 

Superior Court for murder and three counts of attempted robbery. (ECF No. 1). Petitioner 

Case 1:16-cv-00096-EPG Document 14 Filed 04/28/16 Page 2 of 5
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

previously sought federal habeas relief in this Court with respect to the same convictions in

Farmer v. Kirkland, No. 1:05-cv-01253-OWW-DLB.1This previous petition was denied on the 

merits on January 8, 2010. Petitioner appealed the denial to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 

and the Ninth Circuit denied the request for a certificate of appealability on November 30, 2011. 

Order, Farmer v. Kirkland, No. 10-15252 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2011).

The Court finds that the instant petition is “second or successive” under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b). In his response to the order to show cause, Petitioner does not dispute that he 

previously sought federal habeas relief with respect his 1998 convictions in the Madera County 

Superior Court for murder and three counts of attempted robbery. In fact, Petitioner attaches as 

exhibits a court order and a copy of the docket sheet from the previous federal habeas 

proceeding. (ECF No. 13 at 29–30, 34–35).2Further, in his response, Petitioner makes no 

showing that he has obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file the 

instant petition. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed 

application for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and must dismiss the petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. 

at 157. 

Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 

whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas 

corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal 

is only allowed 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 as follows:

(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 

 

1 The Court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 

(9th Cir. 1980).

2

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:16-cv-00096-EPG Document 14 Filed 04/28/16 Page 3 of 5
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

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.

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

indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing 

required by paragraph (2).

If a court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying 

constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason 

would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 

procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar 

is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist 

could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the 

petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. In the present case, the Court finds that 

reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner’s federal habeas 

corpus petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should be allowed to 

proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-00096-EPG Document 14 Filed 04/28/16 Page 4 of 5
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

III.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED;

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case; and 

3. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00096-EPG Document 14 Filed 04/28/16 Page 5 of 5