Robert Carlos Valle v. Ralph Diaz

Filing 4

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY by Judge Andre Birotte Jr,. (es)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

ROBERT CARLOS VALLE,

13
14
15
16
17
18

Petitioner,
v.
RALPH DIAZ,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 20-8927-AB (JEM)
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

On September 28, 2020, Robert Carlo Valle (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding

19

pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody pursuant to 28

20

U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). Petitioner challenges his conviction in Los Angeles County Superior

21

Court Case No. KA069727. (Petition at 2.)

22
23

PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, the Court takes judicial notice of the records in

24

Petitioner’s prior federal habeas corpus action in this Court, Robert Carlos Valle v. S. Scribner,

25

Case No. CV 08-2330-AHM (JEM) (“Valle I”). See United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119

26

(9th Cir. 1980) (“In particular, a court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases,

27

as well as the records of an inferior court in other cases.”) (citations omitted); accord United

28

States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004).

1

On April 8, 2008, in Valle I, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

2

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenged his conviction in Los Angeles County

3

Superior Court Case No. KA069727. (Valle I, Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) On October 14, 2010, the

4

Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the petition in

5

Valle I be denied on the merits and the action be dismissed with prejudice. (Id., Dkt. No. 23.)

6

On November 10, 2010, the Court issued an Order Adopting Findings, Conclusions, and

7

Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge, an Order Denying Certificate of

8

Appealability, and a Judgment dismissing the action with prejudice. (Id., Dkt. Nos. 25-27.)

9

Petitioner did not file a notice of appeal.

10
11

On September 28, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant Petition, in which he challenges the
same conviction at issue in Valle I.

12
13

DISCUSSION
I.

Duty to Screen

14

This Court has a duty to screen habeas corpus petitions. See Rules Governing § 2254

15

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

16

a district court to examine a habeas corpus petition, and if it plainly appears from the face of

17

the petition and any annexed exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief , the judge shall

18

make an order for summary dismissal of the petition. Id.; see also Local Rule 72-3.2. T he

19

notes to Rule 4 state: “‘a dismissal may be called for on procedural grounds, which may avoid

20

burdening the respondent with the necessity of filing an answer on the substantive merits of

21

the petition.’” See Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 1998); W hite v. Lewis,

22

874 F.2d 599, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1989).

23

II.

The Petition Is Subject to Summary Dismissal as an Unauthorized Second or

24

Successive Petition

25

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) provides, in

26

pertinent part:

27
28
2

1

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

2

application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application

3

shall be dismissed.

4

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

5

application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior

6

application shall be dismissed unless –

7

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

8

constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by

9

the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or

10

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

11

discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and [¶]

12

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

13

the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear

14

and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no

15

reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the

16

underlying offense.

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

consider the application.

21

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

22

United States District Courts.

23

A district court does not have jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition

24

absent authorization from the court of appeals. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007)

25

(per curiam); see also Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam )

26

(“When the AEDPA is in play, the district court may not, in the absence of proper authorization

27

from the court of appeals, consider a second or successive habeas application.”) (citation and

28

quotation marks omitted).
3

1

The instant Petition is a second or successive petition challenging the same conviction

2

at issue in Valle I, which was adjudicated on the merits. There is no indication in the record

3

that Petitioner has obtained permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second

4

or successive petition. This Court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction over the Petition under 28

5

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). See Burton, 549 U.S. at 152-53.

6

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Petition without prejudice to Petitioner filing a

7

new action if he obtains permission from the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive

8

petition.

9

III.

The Petition Also Should Be Referred to the Ninth Circuit for Consideration as an

10

Application for Leave to File a Second or Successive Petition

11

Ninth Circuit Rules 22-3(a) provides:

12

An applicant seeking authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C.

13

section 2254 petition or 28 U.S.C. § 2255 m otion in the district court must file an

14

application in the Court of Appeals demonstrating entitlement to such leave under

15

section 2254 or 2255. See Form 12. An original in paper format of the application must

16

be filed . . . unless the application is submitted via Appellate CM/ECF. No filing fee is

17

required.

18

If an application for authorization to file a second or successive section 2254

19

petition or section 2255 motion is mistakenly submitted to the district court, the district

20

court shall refer it to the court of appeals.

21

If an unauthorized second or successive section 2254 petition or section 2255

22

motion is submitted to the district court, the district court may, in the interests of justice,

23

refer it to the Court of Appeals.

24
25

Ninth Cir. R. 22-3(a) (last rev. July 1, 2016) (emphasis added).
As set forth above, the Petition is an unauthorized second or successive petition over

26

which this Court lacks jurisdiction. There is no indication that the Petition was mistakenly filed

27

in the district court. However, the Court finds that it would be in the interests of justice to refer

28

the Petition to the Ninth Circuit before dismissing it without prejudice for lack of subject matter
4

1

jurisdiction. See Ciotta v. Frauenheim, No. LA CV 18-09213-VBF-AS, 2018 W L 6025845, at *3

2

(C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2018) (referring successive habeas petition to Ninth Circuit within discretion

3

granted by Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3(a) and dismissing action without prejudice for lack of

4

jurisdiction); see also Burts v. Hatton, No. CV 17-8775 DDP (JC), 2018 W L 3435397, at *1

5

(C.D. Cal. July 13, 2018), appeal filed, No. 18-56046 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2018) (same); Thomas v.

6

Asuncion, No. EDCV 18-1605 CAS (FFM), 2018 W L 4027105, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2018)

7

(“After reviewing numerous district court cases in this circuit, the Court concludes that

8

simultaneous referral and dismissal is appropriate.”) (citing Cielto v. Hedgpeth, 2014 WL

9

1801110 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2014) (collecting district court cases)).

10
11

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, the Court “must issue

12

or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.”

13

The Court has found that the Petition should be dismissed without prejudice as an

14

unauthorized second or successive petition. For the reasons stated above, the Court

15

concludes that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

16

right, as is required to support the issuance of a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

17

§ 2253(c)(2).

18

ORDER

19

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

20

(1) Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3(a), the Court REFERS the Petition to the Ninth

21

Circuit for consideration as an application for leave to file a second or successive habeas

22

corpus petition.

23

“Petitioner is advised that this referral alone does not constitute compliance with Circuit

24

Rule 22-3 and 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Petitioner must still file a motion for leave to proceed in

25

the Court of Appeals and make the requisite showing” to convince the Ninth Circuit to grant

26

him leave to file this second-or-successive habeas petition.” Henderson v. Madden, No. LA

27

CV 16-02003-VBF (AGR), 2016 WL 4009873, at *3 n.1, *5-6 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2016)

28

(collecting cases in which Ninth Circuit district courts issued this advisement to pro se habeas
5

1

petitioners). Petitioner is directed to consult this statute and Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3 f or further

2

information.

3

(2) The Clerk shall send copies of the Petition and this Order to the Ninth Circuit. The

4

Clerk also shall mail Petitioner a copy of Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3 and Ninth Circuit Court of

5

Appeals Form 12, entitled “Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition Under

6

28 U.S.C. § 2254 or Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”

7
8

(3) The Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to its refiling after Petitioner obtains
permission to do so from the Ninth Circuit.1

9

(4) A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

10

(5) Judgment shall be entered accordingly.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

DATED: October 15, 2020
ANDRE BIROTTE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

If Petitioner obtains permission to file a second 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. When Petitioner files a new
petition, the Court will give the petition a new case number.
6