Tilton v. MacDonald

Filing 15

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be Dismissed as a Second or Successive Petition signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/9/2009. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 12/14/2009. (Sondheim, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MICHAEL E. TILTON, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 17 Petitioner was sentenced by the Kern County Superior Court to sixteen years in prison for 18 continuous sexual abuse of a minor. (Pet. at 2). Petitioner appealed to the California Court of 19 Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, which denied his appeal. (Pet. at 3). Petitioner filed a petition for 20 writ of habeas corpus with this Court on December 11, 2007, case number 1:07-cv-01795-LJO-BAK, 21 which was denied on July 18, 2008. On October 21, 2008, Petitioner was transferred to Florence 22 Correctional Center in Florence, Arizona due to the overcrowding in California state prisons. (Pet. 23 at 4-5). Petitioner filed the instant petition on January 12, 2009 with the United States District Court 24 in Arizona. The case was transferred to this Court on March 9, 2009. (Doc. #6). 25 DISCUSSION 26 A federal court must dismiss a second or successive petition that raises the same grounds as a 27 prior petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). The court must also dismiss a second or successive petition 28
U .S . D is tri ct Court E . D . California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) Petitioner, ) ) ) v. ) ) ) JAMES EDWARD MacDONALD, Warden ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) 1:09-cv-00527 AWI YNP (DLB) (HC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BE DISMISSED AS A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE PETITION.

1

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
U .S . D is tri ct Court E . D . California

raising a new ground unless the petitioner can show that 1) the claim rests on a new, retroactive, constitutional right or 2) the factual basis of the claim was not previously discoverable through due diligence, and these new facts establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for the constitutional error, no reasonable finder of fact would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B). However, it is not the district court that decides whether a second or successive petition meets these requirements, which allow a petitioner to file a second or successive petition. Section 2244 (b)(3)(A) provides: "Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." In other words, Petitioner must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before he can file a second or successive petition in district court. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-657 (1996). This Court must dismiss any second or successive petition unless the Court of Appeals has given Petitioner leave to file the petition because a district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a second or successive petition. Pratt v. United States, 129 F.3d 54, 57 (1st Cir. 1997); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 794 (1997); Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). Because the current petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) apply to Petitioner's current petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997). Petitioner makes no showing that he has obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file his successive petition attacking the conviction. That being so, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed application for relief from that conviction under Section 2254 and must dismiss the petition. See Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1277; Nunez, 96 F.3d at 991. If Petitioner desires to proceed in bringing this petition for writ of habeas corpus, he must file for leave to do so with the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3). RECOMMENDATION Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as successive. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United 2

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
U .S . D is tri ct Court E . D . California

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days (plus three days for mailing) after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a

November 9, 2009

/s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3