Brian Keith Laws v. W.J. Sullivan

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The Petition is denied and dismissed without prejudice. (sp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

BRIAN KEITH LAWS,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
W.J. SULLIVAN (Warden),
)
et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
______________________________)

NO. CV 20-9202-FMO(E)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

17
18

Petitioner filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a

19

Person in State Custody” on October 6, 2020.

The Petition seeks to

20

challenge a 1993 Los Angeles Superior Court criminal judgment

21

(Petition, p. 2).

22
23

Petitioner previously challenged this same Superior Court

24

judgment in a prior habeas corpus petition filed in this Court.

See

25

Laws v. Lamarque, CV 02-1032-RSWL(PJW).

26

entered Judgment in Laws v. Lamarque, CV 02-1032-RSWL(PJW), denying

27

and dismissing the prior petition on the merits with prejudice.

28

///

On April 18, 2005, this Court

1

The Court must dismiss the present Petition in accordance with

2

28 U.S.C. section 2244(b) (as amended by the “Antiterrorism and

3

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996”).

4

a petitioner seeking to file a “second or successive” habeas petition

5

first obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals.

6

Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (where petitioner did not receive

7

authorization from Court of Appeals before filing second or successive

8

petition, “the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain

9

[the petition]”); Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1111 (9th Cir.

Section 2244(b) requires that

See Burton v.

10

2000) (“the prior-appellate-review mechanism set forth in § 2244(b)

11

requires the permission of the court of appeals before ‘a second or

12

successive habeas application under § 2254’ may be commenced”).

13

petition need not be repetitive to be “second or successive,” within

14

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. section 2244(b).

15

Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 920-21 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 965

16

(1998); Calbert v. Marshall, 2008 WL 649798, at *2-4 (C.D. Cal.

17

Mar. 6, 2008).

18

“constitutes an adjudication on the merits that renders future

19

petitions under § 2254 challenging the same conviction ‘second or

20

successive’ petitions under § 2244(b).”

21

1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009).

22

authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

23

this Court cannot entertain the present Petition.

24

Stewart, 549 U.S. at 157; see also Remsen v. Att’y Gen. of Calif., 471

25

Fed. App’x 571, 571 (9th Cir. 2012) (if a petitioner fails to obtain

26

authorization from the Court of Appeals to file a second or successive

27

petition, “the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the

28

///

A

See, e.g., Thompson v.

The dismissal of a habeas petition as untimely

McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d

Petitioner evidently has not yet obtained

2

Consequently,

See Burton v.

1

petition and should dismiss it.”) (citation omitted).1

2
3

Petitioner’s attempt to focus on the California Supreme Court’s

4

denial of a 2020 collateral challenge to the 1993 Superior Court

5

judgment does not avoid the “second or successive” bar.

6

Petitioner still seeks to avoid the consequences of the Superior Court

7

sentence he is being compelled to serve.

8

relief is not available to address alleged procedural errors in state

9

post-conviction proceedings.”

At base,

Moreover,“federal habeas

Ortiz v. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923, 939

10

(9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1123 (1999); see Franzen v.

11

Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1012

12

(1989) (holding that allegations of error in state’s post-conviction

13

review are not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings); cf. 28

14

U.S.C. § 2254(a) (limiting federal habeas corpus relief to cases in

15

which there has been a “violation of the Constitution or laws or

16

treaties of the United States”).

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Petition is denied and

26
1

27
28

This Court rebuffed two previous attempts by Petitioner
to bring a “second or successive” petition challenging the 1993
Superior Court judgment. See Laws v. Soto, CV 13-2228-SJO(PJW);
Laws v. Dayey, CV 15-7304-SJO(PJW).
3

1

dismissed without prejudice.

2
3

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

4
5

DATED: October 13, 2020.

6
7
8

___________________________________
/s/
FERNANDO M. OLGUIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11

PRESENTED this 8th day of

12

October, 2020, by:

13
14
15

/s/
CHARLES F. EICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4