Dr. Stephen Jackson v. Debbie Asuncion

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS ACTION by Judge Josephine L. Staton. (See Order for details) Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (vm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

STEPHEN JACKSON,
Petitioner,

14

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS
ACTION

v.

15
16

Case No. CV 16-9351 JLS (MRW)

DEBBIE ASUNCION, Warden,
Respondent.

17
18
19
20

The Court summarily dismisses this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 as
successive, untimely, and procedurally barred on its face.
***

21
22

1.

This is a state habeas action. In 2005, Petitioner was convicted of

23

rape and numerous other sexual offenses and sentenced to 83 years to life in

24

prison. This action represents Petitioner’s seventh federal habeas action in this

25

Court.1 Although not clearly pled, the current habeas petition claims that Petitioner

26
27
28

1

Jackson v. Felker, CV 07-3982 GAF (RC) (C.D. Cal.); Jackson v.
Stainer, CV 11-5967 GAF (MRW) (C.D. Cal.); Jackson v. Holland, CV 12-5362
GAF (MRW) (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed as improperly filed civil rights action);
(continued…)

1

is actually innocent of the sexual assaults. He also appears to complain about

2

aspects of the identification testimony against him at trial. Notably, Petitioner

3

identifies no newly discovered evidence regarding his convictions as the basis for

4

his actual innocence claim.

5

2.

In the course of Petitioner’s previous habeas actions (CV 12-8210, 15-

6

1354, 15-4300), Magistrate Judge Wilner expressly informed Petitioner that he

7

needed permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

8

before pursuing a successive habeas case. As with those actions, the current

9

petition was not accompanied by a certificate from the Court of Appeals

10
11

authorizing a successive habeas action.
3.

Additionally, when Petitioner presented his new “claims” in habeas

12

actions in the state supreme court, that court denied review by citation to In re

13

Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th 770, 780 (1998), and In re Clark, 5 Cal. 4th 750, 767-769

14

(1993). (Docket # 1 at 32.) These citations signaled that Petitioner’s habeas filing

15

was untimely as a matter of California law. Walker v. Martin, ___ U.S. ___, 131

16

S. Ct. 1120, 1125 (2011).

17
18

***
4.

If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person

19

detained is not entitled” to habeas relief, a court may dismiss a habeas action

20

without ordering service on the responding party. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; see

21

also Rule 4 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District

22

Courts (petition may be summarily dismissed if petitioner plainly not entitled to

23

relief); Local Civil Rule 72-3.2 (magistrate judge may submit proposed order for

24
25
26
27
28

(…continued)
Jackson v. Holland, CV 12-8210 GAF (MRW) (C.D. Cal.); Jackson v. Muniz, CV
15-1354 JLS (MRW) (C.D. Cal.); Jackson v. Muniz, CV 15-4300 JLS (MRW)
(C.D. Cal.) (challenging related probation revocation proceeding).
2

1

summary dismissal to district judge “if it plainly appears from the face of the

2

petition [ ] that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”).

3

5.

Petitioner’s seventh habeas action is subject to summary dismissal.

4

The action is an unauthorized successive petition for which – despite the Court’s

5

previous warnings – Petitioner did not apply to the circuit court for permission to

6

pursue. A prisoner must obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals to pursue

7

such a successive habeas petition before the new petition may be filed in district

8

court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3); Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007) (dismissing

9

successive petition for failure to obtain authorization from court of appeals).

10

6.

Additionally, Petitioner’s action is facially time-barred under AEDPA

11

and procedurally-barred from federal review. A habeas litigant is obliged to

12

commence an action within one year of the conviction becoming final. 28 U.S.C.

13

§ 2244. Petitioner filed his current action over a decade after his conviction

14

became final. His vague claims of actual innocence are insufficient to render his

15

action timely.

16

7.

Moreover, the state supreme court’s determination that his state

17

habeas action was untimely (the Clark/Robbins order) means his action is

18

procedurally barred in federal court. In Walker, the Supreme Court unanimously

19

and expressly held that California’s untimeliness bar for habeas petitions is an

20

adequate and independent state procedural ground that bars relief in federal court.

21

Walker, 131 S. Ct. at 1124. Therefore, when a California court bases a denial of a

22

habeas petition on Clark or Robbins, a prisoner is defaulted under AEDPA from

23

pursuing consideration of those claims on federal habeas review. Id.; see

24

also Alvarez v. Wong, 425 F. App’x 652 (9th Cir. 2011) (applying Walker to

25

affirm dismissal of petition that was untimely in state court).

26

***

27
28
3

1

The current action is successive, untimely, and is procedurally barred. The

2

petition is subject to summary dismissal. Because the Court does not have

3

jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claims, the action is DISMISSED without

4

prejudice.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: April 24, 2017

9

__________________ ________________
HON. JOSEPHINE L. STATON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11

Presented by:

12
13
14
15
16

____________________________________
HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4