Ross v. Arnold

Filing 9

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 1 AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO THE PRESENT MATTER. CASE ASSIGNED TO DISTRICT JUDGE LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL; NEW CASE NUMBER: 1:15-cv-00762-LJO-MJS-(HC) signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/21/2015. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 6/25/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

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. 1:15-cv-00762 MJS (HC)
ALVIN RONNEL ROSS,

12
13

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
Petitioner, 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

14
15
16

ERIC ARNOLD, Warden,
Respondent.

17
18
19

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

20

In the petition filed on April 29, 2015, Petitioner challenges an October 15, 1979

21

conviction in the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin for first degree

22

murder and various other offenses and enhancements. Petitioner was sentenced to an

23

indeterminate state prison term of life without the possibility of parole.

24

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

25

habeas relief with respect to this conviction. In case number 1:98-cv-05559-OWW-LJO

26

(HC), Petitioner challenged the same underlying conviction. On August 6, 1999, the

27
28
1

1

petition was denied as untimely. 1 See Ross v. Galaza, E.D. Cal. Case No. 1:98-cv-

2

05559-OWW-LJO (HC), ECF Nos. 22, 26-27. On May 27, 2003, Petitioner filed another

3

petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the conviction with this Court. See Ross v.

4

Alameida, E.D. Cal. Case No. 1:03-cv-05694-OWW-SMS (HC). It is noted that in that

5

petition, Petitioner raised claims alleging similar constitutional challenges to those

6

presented in the present petition, namely alleging ex post facto violations. The petition

7

was denied as untimely on August 30, 2004. Id., ECF Nos. 15, 20-21.

8

I.

DISCUSSION

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

file a second or successive petition with the district court.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26
27
28

1

In McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009), the Ninth Circuit held that dismissal of
a habeas petition for failure to comply with the AEDPA statute of limitations renders subsequent petitions
challenging the same conviction successive.

2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).

13

II.

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION

14

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

15

DISMISSED as successive. Further, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to assign a

16

District Court judge to the instant matter.

17

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

///

27

///

28

///
3

1

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

2

waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,

3

839 (9th Cir. 2014).

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 21, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4