Soperry Chea v. Rick Hill
Order Summarily Dismissing Petition for Lack of Jurisdiction by Judge Josephine L. Staton. The Petition is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. If Petitioner wishes to make a second or successive application in this Court, he must first file a "Motion for Order Authorizing District Court to Consider Second or Successive Petition Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A)" directly with the Ninth Circuit. (es)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. CV 20-06301-JLS (DFM)
Order Summarily Dismissing Petition
for Lack of Jurisdiction
RICK HILL, Warden,
Soperry Chea (“Petitioner”) was convicted of second degree murder in
June 2009. See Dkt. 1 (“Petition”) at 2. He appealed, the California Court of
Appeal affirmed (see id. at 193), and the California Supreme Court denied his
petition for review on December 1, 2010. See Cal. Ct. Appeal Case No.
B219274; Cal. S. Ct. Case No. S187626.
In September 2011, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody in this Court. See Soperry Chea
v. G.D. Lewis, No. CV 11-07935-R (RZ) (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 1 (“the Prior
Case”). That petition was dismissed with prejudice on the merits. See id. Dkt.
Several years later, in August 2019, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus
petition in Los Angeles County Superior Court, which was denied. See
Petition at 192-94. Petitioner filed subsequent habeas corpus petitions in the
California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court, which were also
denied. See id. at 196, 207. On June 27, 2020, Petitioner constructively filed a
habeas corpus petition in this Court challenging his 2009 conviction, arguing
instructional error, lack of mental capacity, ineffective assistance of counsel,
and unconstitutional failure to conduct a juvenile fitness hearing. See id. at 5-6.
A federal court will not consider a second or successive habeas corpus
petition unless the petitioner shows that (1) his claim relies on a new rule of
constitutional law, made retroactive by the Supreme Court, that was
previously unavailable or (2) the factual predicate for the claim could not have
been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence. See 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). A district court may not decide whether a second or
successive petition meets these requirements; the petitioner must obtain the
authorization from the appropriate court of appeals before filing the petition.
See id. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007). The
authorization from the appropriate court of appeals is a jurisdictional
requirement. See Burton, 549 U.S. at 157.
Having reviewed the Petition and the Prior Case, it is apparent that the
Petition is second or successive. Petitioner would need to move in the Ninth
Circuit for an order authorizing this Court to consider the Petition. Until then,
the Court lacks jurisdiction over the case. See id.
The Petition is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. If Petitioner wishes
to make a second or successive application in this Court, he must first file a
“Motion for Order Authorizing District Court to Consider Second or
Successive Petition Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)” directly with the
Date: September 7, 2020
JOSEPHINE L. STATON
United States District Judge
DOUGLAS F. McCORMICK
United States Magistrate Judge
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?