Byron Leroy Scott v. State of California

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge Manuel L. Real, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new petition, BUT ONLY IF he obtains the necessary authorization from the Ninth Circuit. If Petitioner does no t obtain such authorization, he shall not file any additional motions or petitions for amendment, reconsideration, rehearing, or other relief relating to the 1996 judgment of conviction for murder. re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) 1 Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (lmh)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 BYRON LEROY SCOTT, 12 Petitioner, 13 v. 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. EDCV 13-0703-R (JEM) ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 17 On April 17, 2013, Byron L. Scott (“Petitioner”), a prisoner in state custody 18 proceeding pro se, filed a pleading entitled “Complaint for Negligence to Vacate 19 Sentence/Judgment.” Petitioner challenges the validity of his 1996 state court judgment of 20 conviction in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. FWV07023 (the “1996 21 judgment”) and, therefore, this pleading is properly construed as a Petition for Writ of 22 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). 23 Petitioner previously has filed at least four other federal habeas petitions challenging 24 the 1996 judgment. For the reasons set forth more fully below, the Petition must be 25 dismissed as an unauthorized successive habeas petition. 26 27 28 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 1 2 In 1996, in the San Bernardino County Superior Court, Petitioner was convicted of 3 first degree murder, residential burglary, and residential robbery (Cal Penal Code §§ 187, 4 459, 211). He was sentenced to a term of life without parole plus seven years. The 5 California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in November 1997. It does not appear that 6 Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. 7 On October 12, 2004, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court 8 challenging the 1996 convictions. Scott v. Runnels, Case No. EDCV 04–1274–R (Mc). 9 Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition, contending that the petition was 10 time-barred by the 1-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). On 11 April 15, 2005, the Court dismissed the petition with prejudice, finding that it was untimely 12 filed. The Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability on September 13, 2005. 13 On November 23, 2009, Petitioner filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus 14 challenging the 1996 judgment. On December 2, 2009, the Court summarily dismissed the 15 petition without prejudice, finding that it was a successive petition within the meaning of 28 16 U.S.C. § 2244 and that Petitioner had failed to obtain approval from the Ninth Circuit prior to 17 filing. Scott v. Small, Case No. EDCV 09–2163–R (MLG).2 18 On April 2, 2010, Petitioner filed a third petition for writ of habeas corpus in this 19 Court. Scott v. Small, Case No. EDCV 10–0492–R (MLG). Petitioner again sought to 20 challenge the 1996 judgment. In addition to the claims previously presented in his first two 21 federal habeas petitions, Petitioner raised four new grounds for relief. The third habeas 22 petition was dismissed without prejudice on April 15, 2011, based upon the finding that it 23 was an unauthorized successive petition withing the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 24 25 1 26 27 28 The facts and procedural history are taken from the Order Dismissing Successive Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Scott v. Small, Case No. EDCV 10–0492–R (MLG). 2 Petitioner filed a request for leave to file a successive petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on January 12, 2010. The request was denied on March 8, 2010. Scott v. Small, Case No. 10–70100. 2 1 On August 11, 2010, the Ninth Circuit entered an order construing Petitioner’s request for a 2 writ of mandamus as a request for leave to file a successive petition, and denying that 3 request. Petitioner was advised that no petition for rehearing or reconsideration would be 4 entertained. In re Scott, Case No. 10–71463. 5 On December 20, 2011, Petitioner filed a fourth habeas petition challenging the 1996 6 judgment. Scott v. McEwen, Case No. EDCV 11-2017-R. That petition was dismissed 7 without prejudice on January 4, 2012, as a successive petition withing the meaning of 28 8 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 9 On April 17, 2013, Petitioner filed the instant Petition, which again challenges the 10 validity of his 1996 judgment of conviction. The Petition must be dismissed as an 11 unauthorized successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). DISCUSSION 12 13 A. Duty to Screen 14 This Court has a duty to screen habeas corpus petitions. See Rules Governing § 15 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes. Rule 4 16 requires a district court to examine a habeas corpus petition, and if it plainly appears from 17 the face of the petition and any annexed exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, 18 the judge shall make an order for summary dismissal of the petition. Id.; see also Local 19 Rule 72-3.2. 20 B. Successive Petition 21 The Petition must be dismissed as a successive petition over which this Court lacks 22 jurisdiction. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) “greatly 23 restricts the power of federal courts to award relief to state prisoners who file second or 24 successive habeas corpus applications.” Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 661 (2001). AEDPA 25 “creates a ‘gatekeeping’ mechanism for the consideration of second or successive 26 applications in district court.” Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996); see also Stewart 27 v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 641 (1998). Second or successive habeas petitions are 28 subject to the “extremely stringent” requirements of AEDPA. Babbitt v. Woodford, 177 F.3d 3 1 744, 745 (9th Cir. 1999). “Before a second or successive application permitted by this 2 section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of 3 appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 4 2244(b)(3)(A). Second or successive habeas petitions filed in the district court without an 5 authorizing order from the court of appeals shall be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); 6 see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007) (where petitioner neither sought nor 7 received authorization from Court of Appeals before filing second or successive petition, 8 district court should have dismissed petition for lack of jurisdiction). “‘When the AEDPA is in 9 play, the district court may not, in the absence of proper authorization from the court of 10 appeals, consider a second or successive habeas application.’” Cooper v. Calderon, 274 11 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Libby v. Magnusson, 177 F.3d 43, 46 (1st Cir. 12 1999)). Although the Petition is labeled as a “Complaint for Negligence to Vacate 13 14 Sentence/Judgement,” it directly challenges the validity of the 1996 judgment and must be 15 construed as a successive federal habeas petition. Under AEDPA, Petitioner was required 16 to obtain an order from the Ninth Circuit authorizing the Court to consider his claims prior to 17 filing this case. Because he did not do so, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the 18 Petition. Burton, 549 U.S. at 153; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 19 ORDER 20 In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition is 21 DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new petition, BUT ONLY IF he obtains 22 the necessary authorization from the Ninth Circuit. If Petitioner does not obtain such 23 authorization, he shall not file any additional motions or petitions for amendment, 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 4 1 reconsideration, rehearing, or other relief relating to the 1996 judgment of conviction for 2 murder. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 DATED: May 3, 2013 MANUEL L. REAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 Presented by: 9 10 /s/ John E. McDermott John E. McDermott United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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?