Tyron Smith v. Debbie Asuncion

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 6/19/2017. (dc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TYRON SMITH,

12

Petitioner,

13

vs.

14

DEBBIE ASUNCION, Warden,

15

Respondent.

16
17

) Case No. CV 17-03676-JAK (DTB)
)
)
) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
)
)
)
)
)
)

On May 16, 2017, petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”)

18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 along with supporting exhibits (“Pet. Exh.”). The
19 Petition purports to be directed to a 2007 conviction sustained by petitioner in Los
20 Angeles County Superior Court in Case No. TA084803. (See Pet. at 1, 7.) Petitioner
21 purports to be raising a single ground for relief contending that the mandatory life
22 sentence he received while still a minor violates the Eighth Amendment’s
23 proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. (See Pet. at 1-2, 10-11.)
24

Based on its review of the Petition, as well as information derived from the

25 docket of the United States District Court, Central District of California, it appears
26 to the Court that the Petition herein constitutes a second or successive petition under
27 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), as petitioner previously sought habeas relief from the same 2007
28 Los Angeles County Superior Court judgment of conviction in a petition filed in this
1

1 Court, Case No. CV 11-06026-JAK (DTB) (the “Prior Action”). On September 17,
2 2012, Judgment was entered in the Prior Action dismissing that petition with
3 prejudice. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal from that Judgment on November 7,
4 2012, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Judgment on October 29, 2013.
5

Thus, it appears that the Petition now pending constitutes a second or

6 successive petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
7 (the “AEDPA”). Specifically, under the AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) reads, in
8 pertinent part, as follows:
9

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

10

application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application

11

shall be dismissed.

12

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

13

application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior

14

application shall be dismissed unless--

15

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

16

of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral

17

review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or

18

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

19

been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence;

20

and

21

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

22

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

23

by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error,

24

no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of

25

the underlying offense.

26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

consider the application.”

5
6

Here, it appears that the instant Petition constitutes a second and/or successive

7 petition within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), as it challenges the same
8 conviction as petitioner’s habeas petition in the Prior Action. See McNabb v. Yates,
9 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009). As such, it was incumbent on petitioner under
10 § 2244(b)(3)(A) to secure an order from the Ninth Circuit authorizing the District
11 Court to consider the Petition, prior to his filing of it in this Court. Petitioner’s failure
12 to do so deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. See Cooper v. Calderon,
13 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001).
14

Accordingly, on or before June 19, 2017, petitioner is ORDERED to show

15 cause in writing (if any he has) why the Court should not recommend that this action
16 be dismissed with prejudice on the ground that petitioner failed to secure an order
17 from the Ninth Circuit authorizing the District Court to consider the Petition, prior
18 to his filing of it in this Court.
19
20 DATED: May 22, 2017
21
22
23

DAVID T. BRISTOW
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3