Emmett Johnson v. Suzanne Peery

Filing 3

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge James V. Selna. Re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) 1 . (ib)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 EMMETT JOHNSON, Petitioner, 10 11 12 v. Case No. CV 17-04564 JVS (AFM) ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION SUZANNE PEERY, 13 Respondent. 14 15 16 Petitioner is a prisoner currently incarcerated at a state prison facility in 17 Susanville, California. On June 21, 2017, he filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 18 Corpus by a Person in State Custody, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 This Petition is directed to the same 1996 Los Angeles County Superior 20 Court judgment of conviction as four prior habeas actions filed by petitioner in this 21 Court. First, in September 2010, petitioner’s action in Case Number CV 10-6792- 22 JVS-RZ was summarily dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction 23 because petitioner had failed to file a proper habeas petition. Second, in December 24 2013, the petition in Case Number CV 13-7464-JVS-RZ was dismissed with 25 prejudice as time-barred. Third, in August 2014, the petition in Case Number CV 26 14-5869-JVS-RZ was summarily dismissed without prejudice as successive. 27 Fourth, in June 2016, the petition in Case Number CV 16-3887-JVS-AFM also was 28 summarily dismissed without prejudice as successive. 1 In this latest Petition, petitioner claims that his constitutional rights were 2 violated because he was detained for five and a half months after his arrest without 3 being notified of the nature of the charges against him. 4 On three prior occasions, petitioner has requested permission in the Ninth 5 Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive petition, but he has never been granted 6 permission to do so. The first request was denied in February 2014, in Case 7 Number 14-70287. The second request was denied in May 2017, in Case Number 8 16-72708. The third request (which raises the same claim as this Petition) was filed 9 on June 16, 2017, and it is still pending in Case Number 17-71767. 10 The provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 11 (Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214) (“AEDPA”) governing successive petitions apply 12 to all habeas petitions filed after the effective date of the AEDPA on April 24, 13 1996, without regard to when the conviction was sustained or when the first petition 14 was filed. See Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1272 (9th Cir. 2001); United 15 States v. Villa-Gomez, 208 F.3d 1160, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2000). Section 106 of the 16 AEDPA, amended as 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), reads in pertinent part as follows: 17 (1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas 18 corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior 19 application shall be dismissed. 20 (2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas 21 corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior 22 application shall be dismissed unless-- 23 (A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new 24 rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral 25 review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or 26 27 28 (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and 2 1 viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to 2 establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional 3 error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty 4 of the underlying offense. (3) 5 (A) Before a second or successive application permitted 6 by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in 7 the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district 8 court to consider the application. 9 10 The pending Petition constitutes a successive petition challenging the same 11 judgment of conviction as did the habeas petition in Case Number CV 13-7464- 12 JVS-RZ, which was denied as untimely and dismissed with prejudice. See, e.g., 13 McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that dismissal of a 14 habeas petition as time barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) constitutes a 15 disposition on the merits and renders a subsequent petition second or successive for 16 purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)). Thus, to the extent that petitioner now is 17 purporting to again challenge his state conviction, it was incumbent on him under 18 § 2244(b)(3)(A) to secure an order from the Ninth Circuit authorizing the District 19 Court to consider his claims, prior to his filing of the instant action in the District 20 Court. Petitioner has not secured authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file a 21 successive petition. His failure to do so deprives the Court of subject matter 22 jurisdiction. See Cooper, 274 F.3d at 1274.1 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Court does not construe the now pending Petition as having been “mistakenly” submitted in the District Court rather than the Court of Appeals. From all indications, petitioner intended to file a successive petition in the District Court. Moreover, petitioner apparently is aware of the procedures for filing an application in the Court of Appeals for authorization to file a successive petition because he has filed such an application previously. Accordingly, there is no basis for referral to the Court of Appeals under Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3. If petitioner wishes to file a successive petition in the District Court, he must first obtain 3 1 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this action be summarily dismissed 2 without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in 3 the United States District Courts. 4 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 5 6 DATED: June 28, 2017 7 8 9 JAMES V. SELNA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 authorization from the Court of Appeals via an application filed in the Court of Appeals demonstrating his entitlement to such authorization. See Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3; 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 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?