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
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?