Robbie Riva v. J G Janda

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Judge Virginia A. Phillips. On April 15, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction in this court in Riva v. Woodford, Case No. CV 05-2795-VAP-JTL (Riva I). On December 1, 2005, judgment was entered denying the petition on the merits with prejudice. On March 25, 2009,the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate affirming the judgment of the district court. On May 29, 2013, Petitioner filed the instan t Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he challenges the same conviction. (Petition at 2.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment be entered summarily dismissing the Petition and action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (See Order for details.) (mp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

ROBBIE RIVA,
Petitioner,
v.

14

J. G. JANDA (Warden),

15

Respondent.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CV 13-3813-VAP (AGR)

OPINION AND ORDER ON
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS

18
19

I.

20

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

21

On January 16, 2002, a Los Angeles County jury convicted Petitioner of

22

attempted voluntary manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon, and

23

discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle. People v. Riva, 112 Cal. App. 4th

24

981, 986 (2003); (Petition at 2). On February 27, 2002, Petitioner was sentenced

25

to 30 years to life. (Id.)

26
27
28

On April 15, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
challenging his conviction in this court in Riva v. Woodford, Case No. CV 05-

1

2795-VAP-JTL (“Riva I”).1 On December 1, 2005, judgment was entered denying

2

the petition on the merits with prejudice. Id., Dkt. No. 14. On March 25, 2009,

3

the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate affirming the judgment of the district court.

4

(Dkt. No. 24.)

5

On May 29, 2013, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas

6

Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in

7

which he challenges the same conviction. (Petition at 2.)

8

II.

9

DISCUSSION

10

The Petition was filed after enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective

11

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Therefore, the court applies the AEDPA in

12

reviewing the Petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336, 117 S. Ct. 2059, 138

13

L. Ed. 2d 481 (1997).

14

The AEDPA provides, in pertinent part: “Before a second or successive

15

application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall

16

move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court

17

to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). A district court does not

18

have jurisdiction to consider a “second or successive” petition absent

19

authorization from the Ninth Circuit. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152, 127 S.

20

Ct. 793, 166 L. Ed. 2d 628 (2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th

21

Cir. 2001) (“When the AEDPA is in play, the district court may not, in the absence

22

of proper authorization from the court of appeals, consider a second or

23

successive habeas application.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

24

Here, the Petition is a second or successive petition that challenges the

25

same conviction and sentence imposed by the same judgment of the state court

26

as in Riva I.

27
28

1

Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, the court takes judicial notice of the
records in the prior action.
2

1

It plainly appears from the face of the Petition that Petitioner has not

2

received authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive

3

petition. This court must, therefore, dismiss the Petition as a successive petition

4

for which it lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). See Burton, 549 U.S.

5

at 152.

6

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

7

Courts provides that “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any

8

attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the

9

judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Here,

10

summary dismissal is warranted.

11

III.

12

ORDER

13
14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment be entered summarily dismissing
the Petition and action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

15
16
17

DATED: June 19,
2013______________________

VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3