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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?