Stewart v. Macomber

Filing 4

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Petition be DISMISSED as successive re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Gregory W. Stewart ; referred to Judge Ishii,signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 03/30/2017. Objections to F&R : 21-Day Deadline (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY W. STEWART, 12 13 Case No. 1:17-cv-00415-JLT (HC) Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. 14 J. MACOMBER, Warden, 15 Respondent. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE [TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] 16 17 18 On March 22, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this 19 Court. Because the petition is successive, the Court will recommend it be DISMISSED. 20 21 DISCUSSION On September 15, 1994, Petitioner was convicted in the Merced County Superior Court 22 of sale of a controlled substance. This petition raises multiple challenges to the conviction. 23 Petitioner has filed numerous federal habeas petitions in this Court challenging this same 24 conviction. See Stewart v. McGrath, No. 1:00-cv-05452-SMS (dismissed as untimely); Stewart 25 v. Sullivan, No. 1:06-cv-01400-WMW (dismissed as unauthorized successive petition); Stewart 26 v. Adams, No. 1:09-cv-00685-GSA (same); Stewart v. Adams, No. 1:09-02212-JLT (same); 27 Stewart v. Adams, No. 1:10-cv-00954-AWI-DLB (same); Stewart v. Macomber, No. 1:11-cv28 00814-DLB (same); Stewart v. Macomber, No. 1:12-cv-00594-JLT (same); Stewart v. 1 1 Macomber, No. 1:14-cv-00266-AWI-MJS (same); Stewart v. Macomber, No. 1:15-cv-000512 SKO (same); Stewart v. Macomber, No. 1:15-cv-01592-SMS (same); Stewart v. Macomber, No. 3 1:16-cv-01428-EPG (same). 4 A federal court must dismiss a second or successive petition that raises the same grounds 5 as a prior petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). The court must also dismiss a second or successive 6 petition raising a new ground unless the petitioner can show that 1) the claim rests on a new, 7 retroactive, constitutional right or 2) the factual basis of the claim was not previously 8 discoverable through due diligence, and these new facts establish by clear and convincing 9 evidence that but for the constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the 10 applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B). However, it is not the 11 district court that decides whether a second or successive petition meets these requirements. 12 Section 2244 (b)(3)(A) provides: "Before a second or successive application permitted by 13 this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of 14 appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." In other words, 15 Petitioner must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before he can file a second or successive 16 petition in district court. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-657 (1996). This Court must 17 dismiss any second or successive petition unless the Court of Appeals has given Petitioner leave 18 to file the petition because a district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a second or 19 successive petition. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 20 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001). 21 Because the current petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the 22 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) apply to Petitioner's current 23 petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997). Petitioner makes no showing that he has 24 obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file his successive petition attacking the 25 conviction. That being so, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed 26 application for relief from that conviction under Section 2254 and must dismiss the petition. See 27 Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1277; Nunez, 96 F.3d at 991. 28 2 ORDER 1 2 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District Judge to this case. RECOMMENDATION 3 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED 5 as successive. 6 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 7 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and 8 Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of 9 California. Within twenty-one days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written 10 objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 11 Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s 12 ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections 13 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 14 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 30, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?