John D. Hunter v. Ron Davis

Filing 4

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. The Petition is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; A Certificate of Appealability is denied. (See document for further details.) Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (sbou)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

JOHN D. HUNTER,
Petitioner,

13
v.

14
15

RON DAVIS,
Respondent.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 17-9170-MWF (JEM)
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

17
On December 22, 2017, John D. Hunter (“Petitioner”), a prisoner in state custody

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(“Petition”), in which he challenges his conviction and sentence in Los Angeles County
Superior Court Case No. BA199284 (“State Court Conviction”). (See Petition at 2, Exs. A &
B.)
Petitioner previously filed two federal habeas petitions in this Court, John D. Hunter v.
D.L. Runnels, Case number CV 06-3011-JSL (CW) (“First Habeas Action”), and John D.
Hunter v. Kevin Chappell, Case number CV 13-7115-JSL (CW) (“Second Habeas Action”),
challenging the State Court Conviction.
On January 21, 2010, the First Habeas Action was dismissed with prejudice as
untimely, and a certificate of appealability was denied. (First Habeas Action, Docket Nos.

1

99-101.) Petitioner thereafter requested a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit,

2

which was denied on October 19, 2011. (Id., Docket Nos. 109, 111, 115.)

3

On December 3, 2013, the Second Habeas Action was dismissed without prejudice

4

because it was an unauthorized successive petition, and a certificate of appealability was

5

denied. (Second Habeas Action, Docket Nos. 5, 7.)

6
7

As set forth more fully below, the instant Petition also must be dismissed as an
unauthorized successive habeas petition.

8
9

DISCUSSION
I.

10

Duty to Screen
This Court has a duty to screen habeas corpus petitions. See Rules Governing §

11

2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes. Rule 4

12

requires a district court to examine a habeas corpus petition, and if it plainly appears from

13

the face of the petition and any annexed exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief,

14

the judge shall make an order for summary dismissal of the petition. Id.; see also Local

15

Rule 72-3.2.

16

II.

17

Successive Petition
The Petition must be dismissed as a successive petition over which this Court lacks

18

jurisdiction. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”)

19

amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) to read, in pertinent part, as follows:

20

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

21

corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior

22

application shall be dismissed.

23

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

24

application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior

25

application shall be dismissed unless –

26

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

27

of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral

28

review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or
2

1

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

2

been discovered previously through the exercise of due

3

diligence; and [¶] (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and

4

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

5

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

6

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found

7

the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

consider the application.

12

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1)-(3)(A); see also Rule 9 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the

13

United States District Courts.

14

AEDPA “greatly restricts the power of federal courts to award relief to state prisoners

15

who file second or successive habeas corpus applications.” Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656,

16

661 (2001). AEDPA “creates a ‘gatekeeping’ mechanism for the consideration of second or

17

successive applications in district court.” Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996); see

18

also Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 641 (1998). Second or successive habeas

19

petitions are subject to the “extremely stringent” requirements of AEDPA. Babbitt v.

20

Woodford, 177 F.3d 744, 745 (9th Cir. 1999).

21

“Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the

22

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

23

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

24

Second or successive habeas petitions filed in the district court without an authorizing order

25

from the court of appeals shall be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); see also Burton v.

26

Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007) (where petitioner neither sought nor received

27

authorization from Court of Appeals before filing second or successive petition, district court

28

should have dismissed petition for lack of jurisdiction). “‘When the AEDPA is in play, the
3

1

district court may not, in the absence of proper authorization from the court of appeals,

2

consider a second or successive habeas application.’” Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270,

3

1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Libby v. Magnusson, 177 F.3d 43, 46 (1st Cir. 1999)).

4

Here, Petitioner challenges the same State Court Conviction that he challenged in

5

the First and Second Habeas Actions. The First Habeas Action was dismissed with

6

prejudice as untimely, and the Second Habeas Action was dismissed without prejudice as

7

an unauthorized successive petition. Under AEDPA, Petitioner was required to obtain an

8

order from the Ninth Circuit authorizing the Court to consider his claims prior to filing this

9

case. Because he did not do so, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the Petition.

10

Burton, 549 U.S. at 153; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).1

11
12

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Under AEDPA, a state prisoner seeking to appeal a district court’s final order in a

13

habeas corpus proceeding must obtain a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) from the district

14

judge or a circuit judge. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA may issue “only if the applicant

15

has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. at § 2253(c)(2);

16

accord Williams v. Calderon, 83 F.3d 281, 286 (9th Cir. 1996). “A petitioner satisfies this

17

standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s

18

resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are

19

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

20

322, 327 (2003); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000).

21
22

When a district court dismisses a petition on procedural grounds, the reviewing court
should apply a two-step analysis, and a COA should issue if the petitioner can show both:

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3(a) provides that “if an application for authorization to file a
second or successive section 2254 petition . . . is mistakenly submitted to the district court,
the district court shall refer it to the court of appeals.” In this case, there is no indication that
the instant Petition is actually an application for authorization to file a second or successive
petition that was mistakenly filed here, and the Court declines to construe it as such. If
Petitioner seeks authorization to file a successive habeas petition, he should submit his
application directly to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in compliance with Ninth Circuit
Rule 22-3.
4

1

(1) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

2

procedural ruling[;]” and (2) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

3

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right[.]” Slack, 529 U.S. at 478.

4

The Court is dismissing the Petition without prejudice because it is a second or

5

successive petition. Since the Petition is clearly a second or successive petition, Petitioner

6

cannot make the requisite showing “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

7

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 478.

8
9

ORDER
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

10

1. The Petition is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction;

11

2. A Certificate of Appealability is denied.

12
13

DATED: February 16, 2018
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5