Ghafur v. Davis
Filing
12
ORDER DISMISSING Successive Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(b); ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment and CLOSE CASE; ORDER DECLINING ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/1/2012. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
KHADIJAH GHAFUR,
11
1:12-CV-01460 GSA HC
Petitioner,
ORDER DISMISSING SUCCESSIVE
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)
12
v.
13
14
R. DAVIS, Warden,
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE
15
Respondent.
____________________________________/
ORDER DECLINING ISSUANCE OF
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
16
17
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
18
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. She has consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant
19
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
20
In the petition filed on September 4, 2012, Petitioner challenges her 2006 conviction in
21
Fresno County Superior Court for theft, embezzlement and fraud. A review of the Court’s dockets
22
and files shows Petitioner has already sought habeas relief with respect to these convictions in
23
Ghafur v. Eichenberger, case no. 1:08-cv-01502 OWW JMD HC. In that case, the petition was
24
denied and judgment was entered on March 31, 2011.
25
26
DISCUSSION
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
raising a new ground unless the petitioner can show that 1) the claim rests on a new, retroactive,
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
1
1
constitutional right or 2) the factual basis of the claim was not previously discoverable through due
2
diligence, and these new facts establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for the
3
constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying
4
offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B). However, it is not the district court that decides whether a
5
second or successive petition meets these requirements, which allow a petitioner to file a second or
6
successive petition.
7
Section 2244 (b)(3)(A) provides: "Before a second or successive application permitted by this
8
section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an
9
order authorizing the district court to consider the application." In other words, Petitioner must
10
obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before she can file a second or successive petition in district
11
court. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-657 (1996). This Court must dismiss any second or
12
successive petition unless the Court of Appeals has given Petitioner leave to file the petition because
13
a district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a second or successive petition. Pratt v. United
14
States, 129 F.3d 54, 57 (1st Cir. 1997); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997),
15
cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 794 (1997); Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996).
16
Because the current petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the
17
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) apply to Petitioner's current
18
petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997). Petitioner makes no showing that she has
19
obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file her successive petition attacking the conviction.
20
That being so, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed application for relief
21
from that conviction under Section 2254 and must dismiss the petition. See Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at
22
1277; Nunez, 96 F.3d at 991. If Petitioner desires to proceed in bringing this petition for writ of
23
habeas corpus, she must file for leave to do so with the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3).
24
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
25
A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a
26
district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-
27
El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue
28
a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
2
1
(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a
district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court
of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.
2
3
(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the
validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial
a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the
validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings.
4
5
(c)
6
7
(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an
appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from–
(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the
detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State
court; or
8
9
(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.
10
(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
11
12
(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which
specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
13
If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability
14
“if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of h[er] constitutional claims or
15
that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
16
further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the
17
petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, she must demonstrate “something more than
18
the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on h[er] . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at
19
338.
20
In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s
21
determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or
22
deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial
23
showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLINES to issue a
24
certificate of appealability.
25
ORDER
26
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
27
1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as successive;
28
2) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the case; and
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
3
1
3) The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.
2
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
Dated:
6i0kij
October 1, 2012
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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 istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
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?