Cecilia Fraher v. K Hughes

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. On March 14, 2014, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Peti tioner challenges her conviction in San Bernardino County Superior Court in 2002. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States Courts provides that "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner." Here,summary dismissal is warranted. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing the Petition and action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (See Order for details.) (mp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CECILIA FRAHER,
Petitioner,

13
14
15

v.
K. HUGHES, Warden,
Respondent.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. EDCV 14-506-SVW (AGR)

OPINION AND ORDER ON
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS

On March 14, 2014, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by

19

a Person in State Custody (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner

20

challenges her conviction in San Bernardino County Superior Court in 2002.

21

(Petition at 2.)

22

I.

23

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

24

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

25

in Petitioner’s prior federal habeas corpus action in the Central District of

26

California, Fraher v. Patrick, Case No. EDCV 06-1406-SVW (AGR) (“Fraher I”).

27
28

1

In August 2002, Petitioner was convicted of three counts of vehicular

2

manslaughter and three counts of second degree murder. (Petition at 2). On

3

March 28, 2003, she was sentenced to 45 years to life. (Id.)

4

In Fraher I, Petitioner challenged the same conviction. Dkt. No. 46 at 2. A

5

Report issued on the merits on June 5, 2008, recommending that the petition be

6

denied and the action dismissed with prejudice. Id., Dkt. No. 46. On February 9,

7

2010, the Court adopted the Report and entered judgment dismissing the petition

8

with prejudice. Id., Dkt. Nos. 53-54. On March 8, 2010, Petitioner filed a notice

9

of appeal. Id., Dkt. No. 56. On March 1, 2012, the Ninth Circuit denied the

10

request for a certificate of appealability. Id., Dkt. No. 63.

11

II.

12

DISCUSSION

13

The Petition was filed after enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective

14

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Therefore, the Court applies the AEDPA

15

in reviewing the Petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336, 117 S. Ct. 2059,

16

138 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1997).

17

The AEDPA provides, in pertinent part: “Before a second or successive

18

application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall

19

move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court

20

to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). A district court does not

21

have jurisdiction to consider a “second or successive” petition absent

22

authorization from the Ninth Circuit. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152, 127 S.

23

Ct. 793, 166 L. Ed. 2d 628 (2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th

24

Cir. 2001) (“When the AEDPA is in play, the district court may not, in the absence

25

of proper authorization from the court of appeals, consider a second or

26

successive habeas application.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

27
28

2

1

Here, the Petition is a second or successive petition challenging the same

2

conviction and sentence imposed by the same judgment of the state court as in

3

Fraher I.

4

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

5

Courts provides that “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any

6

attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the

7

judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Here,

8

summary dismissal is warranted.

9

III.

10

ORDER

11
12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing
the Petition and action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

13
14

DATED: March 26, 2014

STEPHEN V. WILSON
United States District Judge

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

3