Malone v. Felker

Filing 38

ORDER DISMISSING 33 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence; ORDER DENYING 34 Motion to Appoint Counsel; ORDER DENYING 35 Motion for Extension signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/2/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL MALONE, 12 13 14 15 Petitioner, v. MATTHEW KRAMER, No. 1:07-cv-00743-AWI-SMS (HC) ORDER DISMISSING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE (Doc. #33) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (Doc. #34) Respondents. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION (Doc. #35) 16 17 18 On July 19, 2010, the undersigned issued an order denying the petition for writ of habeas 19 corpus on the merits. Petitioner appealed to the Ninth Circuit and on October 13, 2011, the 20 judgment was affirmed. 21 On July 25, 2016, Petitioner filed three motions in this closed case: 1) A motion under 28 22 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence; 2) A motion for appointment of counsel; 23 and 3) A motion for extension of time with respect to the § 2255 motion. Petitioner’s various 24 motions will be denied. 25 28 U.S.C. § 2255 applies to post-conviction challenges to a federal prisoner’s conviction 26 or sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 n.6 (9th Cir. 2016) (en 27 banc); Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 889 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008). 28 U.S.C. § 2254 applies to post- 28 conviction challenges by a state prisoner challenging his conviction or sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1 1 2254; Woods, 525 F.3d at 889 n.2; Stone v. Cardwell, 620 F.2d 212, 213 (9th Cir. 1980). Since 2 Petitioner is a state prisoner, he must seek relief pursuant to § 2254. See id. Therefore, despite 3 invocation of § 2255, the Court will view Petitioner’s motion as brought under § 2254. 4 So viewing the petitioner, as noted above, a prior § 2254 petition by Petitioner was denied 5 on July 19, 2010. Petitioner acknowledges this fact by stating that he pursuing a second or 6 successive action. (Doc. No. 35 at p. 1.) 7 A federal court must dismiss a second or successive petition that raises the same grounds 8 as a prior petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). The court must also dismiss a second or successive 9 petition raising a new ground unless the petitioner can show that (1) the claim rests on a new, 10 retroactive, constitutional right, or (2) the factual basis of the claim was not previously 11 discoverable through due diligence, and these new facts establish by clear and convincing 12 evidence that but for the constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the 13 applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B). However, it is not the 14 district court that decides whether a second or successive petition meets these requirements. 28 15 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A) provides: "Before a second or successive application permitted by this 16 section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for 17 an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." In other words, Petitioner 18 must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before he can file a second or successive petition in 19 district court. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152-53 (2007). This Court must dismiss any 20 second or successive petition unless the Court of Appeals has given Petitioner leave to file the 21 petition because a district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a second or successive 22 petition. Burton, 549 U.S. at 152; United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1062-65 (9th Cir. 23 2011); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001). 24 Here, Petitioner makes no showing that he has obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit 25 to file this successive petition attacking the conviction. Thus, this Court has no jurisdiction to 26 consider Petitioner’s renewed application for relief from that conviction under § 2254. See 27 Burton, 549 U.S. at 152; Washington, 653 F.3d at 1062-65; Cooper, 274 F.3d at 1274. Therefore, 28 the petition must be denied. 2 1 Petitioner has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel with respect to his motion to 2 vacate. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 3 See Roe v. Coursey, 469 Fed. Appx. 622, 624 (9th Cir. 2012); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 4 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, Title 18 U.S.C. §3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of 5 counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules 6 Governing § 2254 Cases. The instant case is closed, Petitioner has not obtained permission to file 7 a successive petition, and the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the 8 appointment of counsel at the present time. 9 In addition, Petitioner has filed a motion for extension of time with respect to his habeas 10 petition. Because the Court is dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction, the motion for an 11 extension of time will be denied as moot. 12 Finally, because reasonable jurists would not disagree that this Court is without 13 jurisdiction to grant Petitioner’s petitioner because the petition is an unauthorized successive 14 petition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Slack v. 15 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 16 ORDER 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 18 1. Petitioner’s petitioner, filed on July 25, 2016 (Doc. No. 33) is DISMISSED without 19 prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction; 20 2. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 34) is DENIED; 21 3. Petitioner’s motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 35) is DENIED as moot; 22 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 23 5. This case remains CLOSED. 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 2, 2017 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?