Darrell Haynes v. William Muniz

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING SUCCESSIVE HABEAS ACTION by Judge Dale S. Fischer. (See document for details). Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (ib)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARRELL HAYNES,

12

Petitioner,

13

vs.

14

WILLIAM MUNIZ, Warden,

15

Respondent.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 15-0358 DSF (RZ)
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
SUCCESSIVE HABEAS ACTION

17

Petitioner Darrell Haynes presents a successive habeas petition that lacks the

18

required Court of Appeals authorization for such a petition. The Court will dismiss the

19

petition summarily for lack of jurisdiction to entertain it.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be

24

notified.”

25
26
27
28

Section 2244 of Title 28, part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act, requires that the district court dismiss most successive habeas corpus petitions:

1

(b)(1)

A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus

2

application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall

3

be dismissed.

4

(2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus

5

application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application

6

shall be dismissed unless –

7

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule

8

of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral

9

review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable;

10

or

11

(B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have

12

been discovered previously through the exercise of due

13

diligence; and

14

(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed

15

in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to

16

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

17

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found

18

the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.

19

(3)(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by this

20

section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate

21

court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the

22

application.

23

.

.

.

24

In Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-57 (1996), the Supreme Court noted

25

that this statute transferred the screening function for successive petitions from the district

26

court to the court of appeals. This provision has been held to be jurisdictional; the district

27

court cannot entertain a successive petition without prior approval from the Court of

28

Appeals. Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001). The district court
-2-

1

therefore either must dismiss a successive petition for lack of jurisdiction, or it may transfer

2

the action, in the interest of justice, to the court where the action properly could have been

3

brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1631; Pratt v. United States, 129 F.3d 54, 57 (1st Cir. 1997).

4

Petitioner attacks his 2009 conviction for murder and other crimes. But

5

Petitioner previously challenged that conviction on habeas in this Court in 2011. The

6

Court dismissed the 2011 action with prejudice. See docket in Haynes v. Lewis, No. CV

7

11-10197 GAF (RZ) (Judgment [ECF 28] filed Dec. 20, 2012). This Court denied a

8

Certificate of Appealability (COA) [ECF 29]. The Court of Appeals denied a COA on

9

April 10, 2013 in its case number 13-55448 [ECF 34]. Petitioner does not appear to have

10

sought certiorari.

11

Petitioner’s current petition does not enjoy the required Ninth Circuit

12

authorization for successive petitions. No factors appear which make it preferable to

13

transfer this case to the Court of Appeals, rather than dismissing it. Accordingly, IT IS

14

ORDERED that the Petition is dismissed.

15
16

DATED: 2/27/15

17
18
19

DALE S. FISCHER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-