N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

DANNY M C D OW ELL, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,

v. DOM INGO UR IB E, Jr., W a rde n, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 13-55159

D.C . No. 5:12-c v-01271-JAK-AN

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia John A. Kronsta dt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d June 3, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : M ELLOY, * * B YB EE, a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Sta te prisone r Da n ny M c Do w el l f i le d a fe de ra l h a

b e a s pe tition in 2012. A distric t c ourt dism isse d the pe tition a s suc c e ssive , finding M c Dowe l l kne w a bout the 

# FIL ED
AUG 07 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r o pr iat e f o r p ub l i c a t ion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.
** The Honora

ble M ic ha e l J. M el l o y, S en i o r Ci r cu i t Ju d g e f o r t h e U .S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Eighth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.fa c t

ua l p re dic a te unde rly i ng his pe tition a t the tim e h e file d his initia l h a b e a s pe tition. For the re a s ons sta

t e d be low, we a ffirm

.

I M c Dowe ll wa s the vic t im of a ga ng-re la te d

a ssa ult in 1989 o r 1990, suffe ring

a fra c ture d skull a nd he a d tra um a . He e xpe rie n c e d c onsta nt he a da c he s, m e m ory loss,

a nd c ognitiv e issue s. U ltim a te ly , he ha d two bra in surge rie s ove r the spa n of four y e a rs.

On J

une 14, 1995, M c Dowe ll a n d h i s w i fe , Are tha , burgla riz e d a n Allsta

te Insura nc e offic e . M c D o we ll w a s subse que ntly found guilty o f burgla ry . B e c a use t his

wa s M c Dowe l l's " third strike , " he wa s se nte nc e d to prison for 26 y e a rs to life

. 1

In Fe brua ry 2 000, M c Dowe ll file d h is first ha be a s pe tition. M c Dowe ll a lle g e d tria l c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive be c a use co u n s el f

a ile d to inve stiga

te his m e dic a l a

n d

m e nta l infirm itie s a nd fa i le d to p re se nt e vide nc e a t tria l re la ting to the i nfirm i tie s. The distric t c ourt de te rm ine d t h a t the ha be a s pe tition wa s file d o utside of AEDPA's

one -y e a r sta tute of lim ita

tions.

1 M c Dowe l l ha s sinc e b e e n pa role d u nde r C a lifornia Proposition 3 6 a nd is now off pa role

. - 2 -In August 2009, M c Dowe ll file d va rious m otions a n d a tta c h e d a nothe r ha be a s pe tition in the distric t c ourt. He a ske d t he distric t c ourt to re ope n his c a s e , g ra nt him

a n e xe m p t i o n f r o m AEDPA's o ne -y e a r sta tute of lim ita

tions, a nd a llow him to file anothe r ha

be a s pe tition. The c ourt found tha t M c Dowe ll wa s not e ntitle d t o r el i ef be c a use his ne w ha

b e a s pe tition would be

suc c e s sive

.

In Ja nua ry 2012, M c Dowe l l file d a n a pplic a t ion with thi s Co u rt, re que sting le a ve t o file yet anothe r ha be a s pe tition. A fte r o ur C ourt gra nte d his re que st, M c D owe ll file d a nothe r ha be a s pe tition in August 2012. The distric t c ourt a ga in dism isse d M c Dowe ll's pe tition a s suc c e ssive , finding M c Dowe ll fa ile d to s how the fa c t ua l pre d ic a te for a ny o f his c l a im s c ould not ha ve be e n disco v er ed pre viously through the e xe rc ise of due dilige nc e . M c Dowe ll a ppe a ls. II W e re vie w a distric t c ourt's dism issa l of a pe tition f o r a w rit of ha

be a s c orpus for l a c k of jurisdic ti on d e n ov o . Ha sa n v. Ga l a z a , 254 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th C ir. 2001).

- 3 -AEDPA a pplie s to M c Dowe ll's suc c e ssive ha be a s pe t ition. R e le v an t to t his

a ppe a l, a pe titione r m a y file a suc c e s sive pe tition ra is i n g a cl aim tha t wa s not pre s e nte d in a

prior a pplic a t ion if:

(i) the fa c tua l pre dic a te for the cl ai m co u ld not ha ve b e e n disc ove re d pre viously through t

he e xe rc ise of due d ili g en ce ; a nd (ii) the fa c ts unde rly ing the c l a im , if p rove n a nd vie we d i n light of the e vide nc e a s a whole , would be suffic i e nt to e sta b lish b y c le a r a

n d c onvinc ing e v ide nc e tha t, but for c o n stitutiona l e rror, no re a s onab l e fa c tfinde r would ha ve found the a

p plic a nt guilty

of the unde rly ing offe nse .
28 U.S.C

. § 2244(b)(2)(B ). C la im s pre s e nte d in a s uc c e ssive p e tition tha t we re pre s e nte d in a

prior a pplic a t ion m

ust be dism isse d . Id. § 2244(b)(1).

M c Dowe ll's c la im s in his initia l ha be a s pe tition re la te d to his m e nta l c a pa c ity

. The initia l pe tition sta

te d he " s uffe re d from m e nta l dim inishe d c a pa c ity " a nd " c ounse l fa ile d t o pre se nt e vide n c e . . . [to show M c Dowe ll] i s a re giste re d m e nta l ly disa ble d p er s o n b y th e sta

t e of C a lifornia for a prior history of bra in surge ry ." M c Dowe ll’ s
c urre nt c la im th at h i s t r ia l c ounse l w a s ine ffe c tive be c a use c ounse l fa ile d to

a de qua te ly inve stiga

te M c Dowe ll’ s c o m

pe te nc e w a s pre se nte d i n his initia l ha be a s pe tition. W e the re fore la c k jurisdic tion ove r this c la im

. Se e id. B e c a use M c Dowe ll’ s othe r c l a im s, like the c l a im s in his initia l pe tition, a re de rive d from his dim inishe d
- 4 -m e nta l c a

pa c i ty , he c ould ha ve disc ove re d, a nd in fa c t d id disc o ve r prior to his initia l ha be a s pe tition, the fa c tua l pre dic a te unde rly ing t hose cl a im s— dim inishe d m e nta l

c a pa c ity

. It is undispute d tha t M c Dowe ll suffe rs from forge tfulne ss, a la c k of

m e m o ry , a nd a n ina

bility to c om

ple te sim ple ta s k s . T he se c ha

ra c te ristic s, sta

nding

a lone , do not wa rra n t the co nc lusion t ha t he wa s una

ble to disc ove r the fa c tua l pre d ic a te unde rl yi n g his pre se nt c la im s. And M c D owe ll pre se nts no e vide nc e to de m onstra

te he did not know of or c o u l d n o t ha ve disc ove re d the se infirm itie s prior
to his initia l h a

be a s pe tition. The re fore , b y fa iling to inc lude the pre s e nt c la im s in his initia l p et i t i on, M c Dowe ll fa ile d to show due dilige nc e . Se e 28 U.S.C

. § 2244(b)(2)(B )(i); Ga g e v. C ha ppe ll, No. 13-73 4 3 8 , 2015 W L 4394008, a t *5 (9th C ir. July 20, 2015).

Furthe r, w e ha ve de sc ribe d th e s tan d a rd within § 2244(b)(2)(B ) a s

" de m a nding." B i ble v. Sc hriro, 651 F.3d 1 060, 1063 (9th C ir. 20 11 )

. A nd we ge ne ra lly ha ve be e n ske ptic a l of a s se rtions tha t the unde rly ing fa c tua l pre dic a te c ould
not ha ve b e e n disc ove re d e a rlie r through t he e xe rc ise of due d ilige n c e whe n a signific a nt a m o unt of t im e h as p as s ed be twe e n the first pe t ition a nd the suc c e ssive pe tition. Id. a t 1064; se e a l so La ndriga n v. Trujillo, 623 F.3d 1253, 1256–57 (9th C ir. 2 010) (doubting tha t the a pplic a nt wa s dilige nt whe n he wa ite d six y e a rs to r eq u es t

- 5 -D N A t e sting a fte r the sta te a dopte d a sta

tute p e rm itting DNA te sting). H er e, M cD o w el l wa ite d a signific a nt a m ount of t im e be fore filing e ithe r o f his suc c e ssiv e ha be a s pe titions (m ore tha

n nine y e a rs), a nd his c la im s do not sa tisfy the de m a nding
sta nda rd within § 2244(b)(2)(B )(i). III B e c a use M c Dowe ll's c urre nt ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e o f c ounse l c la im b a se d o n his tria l c ounse l’ s fa ilure to inve stiga te h is m e nta l a nd m e d i cal c onditions wa s pre s e nte d in his initia l pe tition, a nd his othe r c la im s a re founde d upon the s a m e fa c tua l pre d ic a te of the c la im s ra ise d in his initia l ha be a s pe tition— dim inishe d m e nta l

c a pa c ity

— the d i stric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d his suc c e ssive pe tition.

AFFIR M ED.

- 6 -