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)
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?