Andre Lamar Revis v. The State of California

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION AS SUCCESSIVE by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. The Petition 1 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as successive. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (ch)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11
12

ANDRÉ L. REVIS,

13
14
15
16
17

Petitioner,
v.
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 17-6642-PSG (PLA)
ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION
AS SUCCESSIVE

18

I.

19

BACKGROUND

20

André L. Revis (“petitioner”) initiated this action on September 8, 2017, by filing a Petition for

21

Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“2017 Petition”

22

or “2017 Pet.”), along with a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of the 2017 Petition,

23

and numerous exhibits. The 2017 Petition challenges his March 14, 2005, conviction in the Los

24

Angeles County Superior Court, case number YA06024401, for second degree robbery and

25

assault with a deadly weapon. (2017 Pet. Ex. Abstract of Judgment). Petitioner separately

26

submitted an Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition (“Application”) filed by

27
28

1

petitioner on September 5, 2017, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.1 (2017 Pet. Attach.; see

2

also Ninth Circuit website for case number 17-72487). That Application is still pending in the Ninth

3

Circuit. (Ninth Circuit website for case number 17-72487).

4

On August 18, 2016, petitioner filed an earlier federal habeas petition in case number CV

5

16-6215-PSG (PLA) (“CV 16-6215” or “2016 Petition”) also challenging his 2005 conviction in case

6

number YA06024401. The 2016 Petition was dismissed without prejudice as successive pursuant

7

to the Judgment entered on September 28, 2016. (CV 16-6215, ECF No. 14). Petitioner did not

8

appeal the dismissal of that case.

9

On May 13, 2014, petitioner filed an even earlier federal habeas petition in case number CV

10

14-3665-PSG (RNB) (“CV 14-3665” or “2014 Petition”) also challenging his 2005 conviction in case

11

number YA06024401. The 2014 Petition was dismissed with prejudice as time barred pursuant to

12

the Judgment entered on July 18, 2014.2 (Case No. CV 14-3665, ECF Nos. 7, 9, 10). Petitioner’s

13

request for a certificate of appealability was denied on that same date by the Court. (Case No. CV

14

14-3665, ECF No. 11). His request for a certificate of appealability was denied by the Ninth Circuit

15

on November 20, 2014.3 (Case No. CV 14-3665, ECF No. 16).

16
17

II.

18

DISCUSSION

19

A federal habeas petition is successive if it raises claims that were or could have been

20

adjudicated on the merits in a previous petition. Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1273 (9th Cir.

21
22

1

23

2

24
25
26
27
28

The Court clerk has docketed the Application as an attachment to the 2017 Petition.

Petitioner also filed a federal habeas petition in 2008 in Case No. CV 08-827-PSG (RNB)
that was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. (CV 08-827-PSG
(RNB), ECF Nos. 4-6).
3

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals website reflects that on May 26, 2017, that court denied
plaintiff’s application to file a second or successive habeas petition in the Eastern District of
California because his habeas petition to the Eastern District Court raised the same three claims
that had been raised in this Court in case number CV 14-3665, which had been dismissed as
untimely, and the petition he sought to bring in the Eastern District, therefore, was a successive
petition. (Ninth Circuit website for case number 16-73155).
2

1

2001) (per curiam). The AEDPA provides that a claim presented in a second or successive federal

2

habeas petition that was not presented in a prior petition shall be dismissed unless:

3

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made
retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
unavailable; or

4
5

(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously
through the exercise of due diligence; and

6

8

(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a
whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for
constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of
the underlying offense.

9

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A), (B). Furthermore, “[b]efore a second or successive application permitted

10

by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals

11

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

7

12

Petitioner’s 2014 Petition raised the following grounds for relief: (1) the trial court improperly

13

imposed a high term sentence; (2) petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel during

14

sentencing; and (3) a request for a recall of the sentence. (2014 Pet. at 5). As mentioned above,

15

that action was dismissed with prejudice as time barred. See McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030

16

(9th Cir. 2009) (dismissal for failure to comply with statute of limitations is a dismissal on the merits

17

that renders subsequent petitions successive). In the 2016 Petition, petitioner again alleged that the

18

trial court improperly imposed a high term sentence and that he was denied the effective assistance

19

of counsel during sentencing. (2016 Pet. at 3, 4). In the 2017 Petition, petitioner again alleges that

20

the trial court improperly imposed a high term sentence, and that resentencing is required to correct

21

the errors. However, even if petitioner were seeking to present new claims in the instant Petition --

22

which he is not -- he nevertheless is required to seek and obtain authorization from the Ninth Circuit

23

before filing a successive petition.4 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); see Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147,

24
25
26
27
28

4

The 2017 Petition is subject to the AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations period, as set
forth under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). See Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Ct. (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1286
(9th Cir. 1997). In most cases, the limitation period begins to run from “the date on which the
judgment became final by conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such
review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Petitioner filed the 2017 Petition on September 5, 2017.
(continued...)
3

1

153, 127 S. Ct. 793, 166 L. Ed. 2d 628 (2007) (AEDPA requires petitioner to receive authorization

2

from the Court of Appeals before filing a second habeas petition). Although he has recently filed an

3

application in the Ninth Circuit for leave to file a successive petition, petitioner has not obtained such

4

permission from the Ninth Circuit. It therefore appears, as was the case with the 2016 Petition, that

5

the Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the current 2017 Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). See

6

Burton, 549 U.S. at 153; Cooper, 274 F.3d at 1274 (“‘When the AEDPA is in play, the district court

7

may not, in the absence of proper authorization from the court of appeals, consider a second or

8

successive habeas application.’”) (citation omitted).

9
10

III.

11

CONCLUSION

12
13

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition is dismissed without prejudice as
successive.5

14
15

9/14/17

___________________________________
HONORABLE PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
4

24
25
26
27
28

(...continued)
(ECF No. 1). On its face, therefore, as was the case with respect to petitioner’s 2014 Petition, the
2017 Petition, filed twelve years after his conviction, also appears to be barred by the statute of
limitations.
5

If petitioner obtains permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive
petition, he should file a new petition for writ of habeas corpus. He should not file an amended
petition in this action or use the case number from this action because the instant action is being
closed today. If petitioner files a new petition, the Court will give that petition a new case number.
4