Abijah Williams v. T. L. Campbell

Filing 5

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Mark C. Scarsi: Because it is successive and unauthorized, the Petition is SUMMARILY DISMISSED without prejudice to its refiling should Petitioner obtain the necessary permission from the Ninth Circuit. re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) #1 . [see document for details] (et)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ABIJAH WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,

12
v.

13
14

T.L. CAMPBELL, Warden,
Respondent.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. EDCV 22-2012-MCS (JPR)
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

16
17

On November 10, 2022, Petitioner filed a habeas petition by

18

a person in state custody, challenging his 2006 conviction in

19

Riverside County Superior Court for attempted murder and related

20

crimes.

21

by its Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system).)

22

claims that new evidence, the victim’s recantation, shows his

23

actual innocence.

24

(See Pet. at 2 (the Court uses the pagination generated
He

(See id. at 14-16.)

This is not Petitioner’s first federal habeas petition,

25

however.

On April 16, 2013, the Court denied as time barred his

26

habeas petition challenging the same judgment, in case number

27

EDCV 11-1088-SVW (FFM).

28

nothing indicates that his state-court judgment has been modified

He apparently did not appeal, and

1

1

in any way since the prior habeas petition was denied.

(See,

2

e.g., Pet. at 33 (indicating that in 2021, state court denied

3

habeas petition raising “same” claim as “this petition”).)

4

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act provides:

5

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

6

corpus application under section 2254 that was presented

7

in a prior application shall be dismissed.

8

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

9

corpus

application

under

section

2254

that

was

not

10

presented in a prior application shall be dismissed

11

unless—

12

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a

13

new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to

14

cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,

15

that was previously unavailable; or

16

(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could

17

not have been discovered previously through the

18

exercise of due diligence; and

19

(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and

20

viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would

21

be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing

22

evidence that, but for constitutional error, no

23

reasonable

24

applicant guilty of the underlying offense.
Before

factfinder

a

second

would

the

(3)(A)

26

permitted by this section is filed in the district court,

27

the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of

2

successive

found

25

28

or

have

application

1

appeals for an order authorizing the district court to

2

consider the application.

3

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

4

A denial of a habeas petition as untimely acts as a decision

5

on the merits.

See McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th

6

Cir. 2009).

7

meaning of § 2244(b) because it challenges the same judgment as

8

the earlier petition denied on the merits.

9

2244(b)(3)(A), then, Petitioner was required to secure an order

The Petition is therefore successive within the

Under §

10

from the Ninth Circuit authorizing its filing before he filed it.

11

See Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (per

12

curiam).

13

he has not obtained such an order; indeed, he apparently has

14

never even asked for one.

15

A review of the Ninth Circuit’s docket indicates that

Because it is successive and unauthorized, the Petition is

16

SUMMARILY DISMISSED without prejudice to its refiling should

17

Petitioner obtain the necessary permission from the Ninth

18

Circuit.

19

Cts.

20

entitled to relief . . . the judge must dismiss the

21

petition[.]”); C.D. Cal. R. 72-3.2 (authorizing Magistrate Judge

22

to prepare summary-dismissal order
to sign).
rder
r for
for
o District
Distric
i t Judge
Ju

23
24
25
26
27

See R. 4, Rs. Governing § 2254 Petitions in U.S. Dist.

(“If it plainly appears . . . that the petitioner is not

DATED: 1RYHPEHU
Presented
Presen
nted by:

MARK C. SCARSI
U S DISTRICT JUDGE
U.S.

Jean
J
ean Rosenbluth
U.S.
U
S Magistrate Judge
Jud

28
3