Ronald Lee Adams v. Stephen G Larson et al

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge Manuel L. Real, (2254) 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is DISMISSED without prejudice, BUT ONLY IF he obtains the n ecessary authorization from the Ninth Circuit. If Petitioner does not obtain such authorization, he shall not file any additional motions or petitions for amendment, reconsideration, rehearing, or other relief relating to his conviction in California state court of carjacking and the unlawful taking of a vehicle. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (pj)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

RONALD LEE ADAMS,

)
)
Plaintiff/Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
)
FOR CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
)
CALIFORNIA; STEPHEN G. LARSON,
)
MAGISTRATE JUDGE UNITED STATES )
DISTRICT COURT, in individual and
)
official capacity; THE STATE OF
)
CALIFORNIA,
)
)
Defendants/Respondents.
)
)

CASE NO. CV 13-2704-R
ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY A
PERSON IN STATE CUSTODY

21

Petitioner is a state prisoner who is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

22

corpus pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254. As discussed below, the Court finds that the petition

23

must be dismissed as a successive petition over which the Court lacks jurisdiction. The Court also

24

denies a certificate of appealability as Defendant has not made a substantial showing of the denial

25

of a constitutional right, as is required to support the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

26

I.

27

The Court has a duty to screen habeas corpus petitions. See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases

28

The Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Because the Petition Is Successive

in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes. Because the petition in

1

the present case was filed after the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

2

of 1996 (AEDPA), the AEDPA applies to the petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327, 117

3

S. Ct. 2059, 138 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1069, 118 S. Ct. 739, 139 L. Ed. 2d

4

676 (1998); Furman v. Wood, 190 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999). The AEDPA "greatly restricts

5

the power of federal courts to award relief to state prisoners who file second or successive habeas

6

corpus applications." Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 661-662, 121 S. Ct. 2478, 150 L. Ed. 2d 632

7

(2001). Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) provides, in part:

8
9
10
11

(b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus
application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior
application shall be dismissed.
(2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus
application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior
application shall be dismissed unless —

12
13
14
15

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of
constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by
the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or
(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been
discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of
the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear
and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no
reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the
underlying offense.
(3)(A) 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.

23

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) (emphasis added.)

24

The core principle underlying § 2244(b) is that, absent extraordinary circumstances, a federal

25

habeas petitioner will have only one opportunity to litigate a federal habeas petition. At a

26

minimum, a subsequent federal petition filed by a prisoner who has already received one

27

adjudication of a habeas petition constitutes a "second or successive application" within the

28

meaning of § 2244(b). A request for authorization to file such a repetitive petition under
2

1

§ 2244(b)(3) must be denied unless the petitioner's claims fall within one of the two narrow

2

exceptions set forth in § 2244(b)(2). In the absence of proper authorization from the Court of

3

Appeals, a district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a habeas corpus petition that is a second or

4

successive one within the meaning of § 2244(b). Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th

5

Cir. 2001); Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). This Court may transfer a

6

second or successive petition erroneously filed with the district court to the Ninth Circuit for its

7

"gatekeeper" review under § 2244(b)(3).

8

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) creates a "gatekeeping" mechanism for the consideration of

9

second or successive petitions. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657, 116 S. Ct. 2333, 135 L. Ed.

10

2d 827 (1996). "The prospective applicant must file in the court of appeals a motion for leave to

11

file a second or successive habeas application in the district court." Id. The applicant must make

12

a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of § 2244(b). Id.

13

Here, Petitioner challenges his conviction in a California state court of carjacking and the

14

unlawful taking of a vehicle. See Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petitioners Writ”), CV 13-

15

2704-R, ECF No. 1, p. 2. Petitioner has filed numerous petitions in the past. Most importantly,

16

Petitioner challenged the same conviction in a 2004 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

17

2254. See Adams v. Vazquez, CV 04-2461-SGL. The 2004 petition was dismissed with prejudice

18

by United States District Judge Stephen G. Larsen. Id., ECF No. 65. Although the grounds for

19

the current petition are framed as objections to Judge Larsen’s dismissal, Petitioner is still

20

challenging the same custody under the same judgment. The Supreme Court has held that a

21

"second or successive" petition, subject to the "gatekeeping" provisions of the statute, is one that

22

challenges the same custody under the same judgment challenged in the first petition. See Burton

23

v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152, 127 S. Ct. 793, 166 L. Ed. 2d 628 (2007). Therefore, the Court

24

must dismiss this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

25

successive petition limitation as jurisdictional).

See id. (characterizing the

26

II.

The Court Denies a Certificate of Appealability

27

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases, the Court “must issue or deny a

28

certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” To obtain a
3

1

certificate of appealability, a petitioner must make a "substantial showing of the denial of a

2

constitutional right." Title 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The certificate of appealability shall indicate

3

which specific issues satisfy that "relatively low" standard. See id. § 2253(c)(3); Jennings v.

4

Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002). The standard is satisfied when the "petitioner can

5

'demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the

6

issues [differently]; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

7

further.'" Jennings, 290 F.3d at 1010 (internal citations omitted); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529

8

U.S. 473, 483, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000).

9

The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and is fully apprised of the relevant facts

10

and law. Petitioner essentially contends that Judge Larsen’s dismissal was improper for two

11

reasons. First, Judge Larsen issued a Report and Recommendation as a Magistrate Judge, and

12

then adopted the Report and Recommendation after being appointed as an Article III District

13

Court Judge. Petitioner contends “[t]his was a Constitutional violation of [his] Due Process Right

14

to have an Impartial Hearing Officer. . . .” Petitioner’s Writ, p. 16. Petitioner also asserts the

15

baseless accusation that “Judge Larsen was dumping court cases because he felt underpaid.” Id. at

16

17.

17

decision, and especially does not find that Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial

18

of a constitutional right. Further, Petitioner’s baseless and improper personal attacks on Judge

19

Larsen should not be encouraged.

However, the Court does not find any hint of impropriety surrounding Judge Larsen’s

20

The crux of Petitioner’s second claim for relief is that Judge Larsen fraudulently

21

misconstrued the evidence in finding “sufficient evidence to support [Petitioner’s] carjacking

22

conviction . . . .” Id. at 18-49. Although Petitioner’s 31-page, handwritten brief on this issue is

23

difficult to follow – legibly and logically – it appears he is reasserting arguments that he raised in

24

his 2004 petition and merely disagreeing with Judge Larsen’s resolution of those issues. See id. at

25

18-49 (reasserting claims for failure to instruct on lesser included offense, insufficient evidence to

26

support carjacking conviction, failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, and failure to exclude

27

“fruit of the poisonous tree” evidence); compare Order Dismissing Petition, CV 04-2461-SGL,

28

ECF No. 65 (listing grounds for relief). The Court finds, however, that Petitioner’s baseless
4

1

allegations and rehashing of arguments do not establish that these issues are debatable among

2

jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues differently; or that the questions are adequate

3

to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Thus, Petitioner has not made a substantial showing

4

of the denial of a constitutional right, and a certificate of appealability must be denied.

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of

6

Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is DISMISSED without prejudice, BUT ONLY IF

7

he obtains the necessary authorization from the Ninth Circuit. If Petitioner does not obtain such

8

authorization, he shall not file any additional motions or petitions for amendment, reconsideration,

9

rehearing, or other relief relating to his conviction in California state court of carjacking and the

10
11
12

unlawful taking of a vehicle.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
Dated: June 10, 2013.

13
14
15

________________________________
MANUEL L. REAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5