Melvin Osha Jones v. C. Pfeiffer

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. On May 8, 2017, Petitioner, a state inmate, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his 2002 conviction of kidnapping for purposes of robbery. Becaus e he previously challenged the same state court judgment in a habeas action that the Court dismissed with prejudice, and because he lacks Ninth Circuit authorization to file a successive petition, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the new petition. 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

NO. CV 17-3471-FMO (AGR)

17

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

18

On May 8, 2017, Petitioner, a state inmate, filed a Petition for Writ of

12
13

MELVIN OSHA JONES,
Petitioner,
v.

14

C. PFEIFFER, Warden,

15

Respondent.

16

OPINION AND ORDER ON
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
(SUCCESSIVE PETITION)

19

Habeas Corpus challenging his 2002 conviction of kidnapping for purposes of

20

robbery. Because he previously challenged the same state court judgment in a

21

habeas action that the Court dismissed with prejudice, and because he lacks

22

Ninth Circuit authorization to file a successive petition, the Court lacks

23

jurisdiction over the new petition.

24

I.

25

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

26

Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, the Court takes judicial notice of the

27

records in Petitioner’s prior federal habeas corpus action in the Central District.

28

1

In 2006, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in this court in Jones v. Horel,

2

No. CV 06-3988-ABC (AGR) (“Jones I”). His claims were (1) insufficiency of the

3

evidence; (2) vindictive prosecution; and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel.

4

(See Jones I, Dkt. No. 22 (Notice and R&R) at 4.)

5

On August 3, 2007, the Court accepted the Magistrate Judge’s

6

recommendation and entered Judgment dismissing Jones I with prejudice on the

7

merits. (See Jones I, Dkt. Nos. 27-28.) The Court denied a certificate of

8

appealability. (Jones I, Dkt. No. 31.) On November 2, 2007, the Ninth Circuit

9

denied a certificate of appealabilty in its case number 07-56421. (Jones I Dkt.

10

No. 35.)

11

II.

12

DISCUSSION

13

The Petition was filed after enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective

14

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

15

in reviewing the Petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997).

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). A district court

20

does not have jurisdiction to consider a “second or successive” petition absent

21

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

22

(2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (“When the

23

AEDPA is in play, the district court may not, in the absence of proper

24

authorization from the court of appeals, consider a second or successive habeas

25

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

26
27
28

Here, the Petition is a second or successive petition challenging the same
state court judgment that he challenged in Jones I.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Here, summary dismissal is warranted.

5

III.

6

ORDER

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily

8

dismissing the Petition and action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

9
10
11

DATED: May 22, 2017

/s/
FERNANDO M. OLGUIN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3