Eric J. Williams v. Domingo Uribe

Filing 5

ORDER Summarily Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Judge Josephine L. Staton. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (see document for details). (dro)

1
2
3

O

4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERIC J. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,

12
v.

13
14

Case No. CV 17-02016-JLS (KES)

DOMINGO URIBE, Warden,
Respondent.

15

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION

16
17

On March 14, 2017, Eric J. Williams (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of

18

Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

19

(“Petition”). (Dkt. 1.) The Petition is the second habeas petition that Petitioner has

20

filed challenging his 2009 convictions for second degree robbery and conspiracy to

21

commit robbery in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, case no. NA076870.

22

(Petition at 3.1)

23

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

24

District Courts, a habeas petition filed by a prisoner in state custody “must” be

25

summarily dismissed “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached

26

exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court[.]” For the

27
28

1

All page citations refer to the CM/ECF pagination.
1

1

reasons set forth below, the Petition must be dismissed without prejudice as a second

2

or successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

3

I.

4

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

5
6

In August 2012, Petitioner filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in
this Court, case no. CV-12-06818-JLS-AN.2 The Court found as follows:

7

On December 2, 2009, Eric Jerome Williams (“Petitioner”) was

8

convicted of two counts of second degree robbery (CAL. PENAL

9

CODE § 211) and one count of conspiracy to commit robbery (CAL.

10

PENAL CODE § 182(a)(l)) following a jury trial in the California

11

Superior Court for Los Angeles County (case no. NA076870). The jury

12

also found true allegations that, in the commission of both robberies,

13

Petitioner personally used a handgun (CAL. PENAL CODE

14

§ 12022.53(b)), and that in the commission of one of the robberies

15

Petitioner also personally and intentionally discharged a handgun

16

(CAL. PENAL CODE § 12022.53(c)). Petitioner was acquitted of two

17

counts of attempted murder and one count each of attempted robbery

18

and robbery.

19

In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found true allegations that

20

the robberies were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or

21

in association with a criminal street gang, with the specific intent to

22

further, promote, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members (CAL.

23

PENAL CODE § 186.22(b)(l)). Petitioner was sentenced to a term of

24

35 years in state prison.

25

Petitioner appealed the judgment of conviction to the California

26
27
28

2

The Court takes judicial notice of its own records. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2);
United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).
2

1

Court of Appeal, raising the first two claims he raises in the pending

2

Petition. On February 17, 2011, in an unpublished opinion, the state

3

court of appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction and rejected

4

Petitioner’s claims on the merits (case no. B221139).

5
6

The California Supreme Court denied review of the court of
appeal’s decision without comment or citation (case no. S191822).

7

Petitioner subsequently … [filed] a habeas petition filed with the

8

California Supreme Court, which was denied without comment or

9

citation (case no. S201966).

10

Williams v. Bitter, Case No. CV-12-06818-JLS-AN, Dkt. 19 at 1-2 (report and

11

recommendation) (internal citations to the record omitted).

12

Like the present Petition, the August 2012 petition challenged Petitioner’s

13

2009 convictions for second degree robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery,

14

arguing: (1) that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting gang evidence in a

15

bifurcated trial; (2) that the trial court deprived him of his Sixth Amendment

16

Confrontation Clause rights; (3) that the prosecution failed to disclose evidence

17

favorable to the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963);

18

(4) that he received ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal because his

19

counsel failed to raise the Brady claim; (5) that the trial court improperly sentenced

20

him under California Penal Code § 12022.53(c). Williams, Case No. CV-12-06818-

21

JLS-AN, Dkt. 19. This Court denied the petition on September 11, 2013. Id., Dkt.

22

22 (order adopting report and recommendation).

23

The instant Petition raises at least four claims for relief: (1) Petitioner is

24

actually innocent and there was insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions

25

(Petition at 2, 6); (2) Petitioner was “subjected to prosecutorial misconduct, abuse of

26

process, unlawful attachment and vindictive prosecution” (Id. at 2); (3) Petitioner’s

27

sentence violated due process (Id.); and (4) Petitioner was deprived of a fair trial

28

when the trial court allowed the prosecution to present gang evidence to the jury
3

1

instead of in a bifurcated trial (Id. at 41).

2

II.

3

DISCUSSION

4

If a successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raises a claim that was

5

already presented in a prior habeas petition, then that claim must be dismissed. See

6

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). If a successive habeas petition under § 2254 raises a claim

7

that was not raised in the prior habeas petition or petitions, then that claim must be

8

dismissed unless:

9

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

10

constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the

11

Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or

12

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

13

previously through the exercise of due diligence; and

14

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

15

evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and

16

convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable

17

factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying

18

offense.

19

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). If the petitioner can show that claims raised in a successive

20

habeas petition are proper under one of these provisions, then the petitioner must seek

21

permission in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before filing a successive petition

22

in this Court:

23

Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is

24

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

25

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

26

the application.

27
28

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (emphasis added).
The Petition now pending constitutes a second and/or successive petition
4

1

challenging the same convictions as Petitioner’s prior federal habeas petition within

2

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Thus, it was incumbent on Petitioner under

3

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) to secure an order from the Ninth Circuit authorizing the District

4

Court to consider his new claims prior to filing the instant Petition. Petitioner’s

5

failure to secure an order from the Ninth Circuit deprives this Court of subject matter

6

jurisdiction. Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied,

7

538 U.S. 984 (2003).

8

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be summarily dismissed

9

without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in

10
11

the United States District Courts.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

12
13

DATED: April 27, 2017

14

____________________________________
JOSEPHINE L. STATON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20

Presented by:
___________________________
KAREN E. SCOTT
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5