N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT THOM AS W . S. R IC HEY, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. STEPHEN SINC LAIR , Supe rinte nde nt, C la lla m B ay C orre c t ions C e nte r, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-35830

D.C . No. 3:13-c v-05231-B HS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington B e nja m in H. Se ttle , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 6, 2014 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : PAEZ, B Y B EE, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc u i t Judge s. Pe titione r Thom a s R i c he y (“ R ic he y ” ) a

ppe a ls the distric t

c ourt’ s finding tha

t his pe tition for a

writ of ha

be a s c orpus wa s a

“ s e c ond or suc c e ssive ha b e a s c orpus a pplic ation” unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2244(b). W e issue d a c e rtific at e of a

ppe a la bility on 

# FIL ED NOV 12 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* T his disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

n d is not pre c e d e nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.the l im ite d issueof “ whe the r the 2010 a m e nde d sta

te c ourt judgm e nt is a

ne w, inte rve ning judgme nt a s de sc ribe d in Magw o od v . Patte rson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010), and W e ntze ll v . N

e v e n , 674 F.3d 1124, 1126–28 (9th C ir. 2012).” W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2253. 1 W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t a pe tition is “ se c ond or suc c e ssive ” unde r the Antite rrorism and Effe c tive De ath Pe na lty Ac t of 1996 (AEDPA). W

e ntze ll , 674 F.3d a

t 1126 (c iting Unite d State s v . Lope z , 577 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th C ir. 2009)). The U.S. Supre m e C ourt in Magw ood he ld tha t a ha be a s pe tition c ha lle nging a ne w , inte rve n ing judgme nt re sulting from a re -se nte nc ing wa s not a

“ s e c ond or suc c e ssive a

pplic ation” unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2244(b). 561 U.S. a t 342. W e e xte nde d Magw ood

in W e ntze ll and he ld tha

t a n am e n de d judgm e nt tha

t va c ate s a

c onvic tion and se nte nc e is a

ne w, inte rve ning judgme nt e ve n though the ha be a s pe tition c ha lle nge s unc h ange d

portions of the

origina l judgm e nt. W

e ntze ll , 674 F.3d a

t 1126–28 (c iting Magw ood, 561 U.S. a t 339–40).

1 B e c a u se the pa rtie s a re fam i lia r with thefa c ts a

nd proc e dura l history , we do not re sta t e the m he re e xc e pt a s ne c e ssa

ry to e xpla in our de c ision. 2In 1987, Ric he y ple a de d guilty

to a tte m pte d first de gre e m

urde r, or in the a lte rnative , atte m

pte d first de g re e fe lony

m urde r. 2 Afte r R ic he y

c olla te ra lly atta c k e d his c onvic tion, the W a shington Suprem e C ourt in 2008 he ld tha t R ic he y c ould not ple a d to thec rim e of atte m pte d fe lony

m urde r be c a

use suc h a c rim e did not e xist, but tha

t R ic he y ’ s judgm e nt a

nd se nte nc e re m a ine d va lid be c a use R ic he y ha d ple a de d guilty

to a tte m pte d inte ntiona l m

urde r whic h wa s c ha

rge d a s a n a lte rnative in the am e nde d inform ation. In 2010, the Pie rc e C ounty

Supe rior C ourt c orre c te d R ic he y ’ s judgm e nt by

re m oving thesta

tutory c ita

tion to a tte m p te d fe lony m urde r an d a dding the c ita

tion to a tte m pte d inte ntiona l m

urde r. As in W

e n tze ll , the 2 010 c orre c te d judgm e nt re m ove d a n inva lid ba sis for Ric he y ’ s c onvic tion, i.e ., atte m pte d fe lony

m urde r, a nd wa s a ne w , inte rve n ing judgme nt. The re fore , R ic he y ’ s first fe d e ra l ha

be a s pe tition following the 2010 judgme nt wa s not a

“ se c ond or suc c e ssive ha

be a s c orpus a

pplic ation” unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2244(b). R ic he y ’ s pre se nt pe tition is the first pe tition to cha lle nge the 2010 judgm e nt. 3 This c ourt a ske d the pa rtie s whe the r R ic he y ’ s Ja

nua ry 2013 pe tition

2 R ic he y a lso ple a de d guilty

to a nd wa s c onvic te d of m

urde r in the first de gre e . Tha

t c onvic tion is not a

t issuehe re . 3 R ic he y file d two fe de ra l ha

be a s pe titions on M arc h 27, 2013, which c re ate d two sepa rate c a se num

be rs. The distric t c ourt c onsolida te d those c a se s. This m e m o randum a ddre sse s thosec onsolida te d c a s e s. 3file d

in the W e s te rn Distric t

of W a s hington in In re

Ric he y , No. 3:13-c v-05043- RB L wa s “ a

first pe tition for purpose s of 28 U.S.C . § 2244(b), in light of the distric t c o urt’ s orde r granting R ic he y ’ s m otion to withdra w the pe tition.”R ic he y re sponde d tha

t the Ja nua ry 2013 pe tition wa s not a

first pe tition c ha lle nging the 2010 judgme nt be c a

use the distric t c ourt pe rm itte d R ic h e y to withdra

w the pe tition without pre

judic e . The a

ppe l le e offe re d no a

rgum e nt to thec ontra

ry . W e a gre e with Ric h e y

and hold tha

t his pre se nt pe tition c ha lle nging the2010 judgme nt is not a se c ond or suc c e ssive ha

be a s c orpus a

pplic ation unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2244(b). W e e xpre s s no opinion a s to whe the r the pe t ition is ba rre d by AEDPA’ s one -y e ar sta tute of lim ita

tions or re g a

rding the m e rits of the pe tition. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. VACAT E D and RE M ANDE D .

4