Tucker v. Paramo et al

Filing 6

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Dismiss Successive Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Assign District Court Judge to the Present Matter, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/24/14: New Case No. 1:14-cv-00387 LJO MJS (HC); Thirty-Day Deadline for Objections. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

Case No. 1:14-cv-00387 MJS (HC)
GERALD L. TUCKER,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
Petitioner, DISMISS SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT
TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)

12
13

v.

14
15
16

DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO ASSIGN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO
THE PRESENT MATTER

Respondents.

17
18
19

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

20

In the petition filed on March 17, 2014, Petitioner challenges a July 8, 2002

21

conviction in the Superior Court of California, County of Tulare for custodial possession

22

of a weapon by an inmate, with a true finding as to four prior violent or serious felony

23

convictions within the meaning of California’s Three Strikes Law, as well as a true finding

24

as to a prior prison term within the meaning of California Penal Code § 667.5(b).

25

Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life, plus a one-year

26

enhancement, for a total sentence of 26 years to life.

27

A review of the Court’s dockets and files shows Petitioner has previously sought

28

habeas relief with respect to this same conviction in case number 1:04-cv-05773-LJO1

1

TAG. On August 17, 2008, the petition was denied on the merits. See Tucker v. Ryan,

2

E.D. Cal. Case No. 1:04-cv-05773-LJO-TAG, ECF Nos. 60, 64.

3

I.

DISCUSSION

4

A court must dismiss a second or successive petition that raises the same

5

grounds as a prior petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). A court must also dismiss a second

6

or successive petition raising a new ground unless the petitioner can show that 1) the

7

claim rests on a new constitutional right, made retroactive by the United States Supreme

8

Court or 2) the factual basis of the claim was not previously discoverable through due

9

diligence, and these new facts establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for

10

the constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of

11

the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B). However, it is not the district court

12

that decides whether a second or successive petition meets these requirements; the

13

Petitioner must first file a motion with the appropriate court of appeals to be authorized to

14

file a second or successive petition with the district court.

15

Section 2244 (b)(3)(A) provides: "Before a second or successive application

16

permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the

17

appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the

18

application." In other words, Petitioner must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before he

19

can file a second or successive petition in district court. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S.

20

651, 656-657 (1996). This Court must dismiss any second or successive petition unless

21

the Court of Appeals has given Petitioner leave to file the petition because a district court

22

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a second or successive petition. Greenawalt v.

23

Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997).

24

Because the current petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the

25

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 apply to Petitioner's current

26

petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997). Petitioner makes no showing that

27

he has obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file his successive petition attacking

28

the conviction. That being so, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's
2

1

renewed application for relief under Section 2254 and must dismiss the petition. See

2

Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1277. If Petitioner desires to proceed in bringing this petition for

3

writ of habeas corpus, he must file for leave to do so with the Ninth Circuit. See 28

4

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).

5

II.

6
7

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

DISMISSED as successive.

8

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

9

Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

10

(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

11

Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any

12

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a

13

document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

14

Recommendations." Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen

15

(14) days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court

16

will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c). The

17

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the

18

right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 24, 2014

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3