Faulkner v. Foulk

Filing 9

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION Recommending Dismissal of 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/25/17. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNETH LEWIS FAULKNER,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00810-LJO-SAB-HC

Petitioner,

12
13

v.

14

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS

FRED FOULK,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner, represented by counsel, is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ

18 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
19

I.

20

DISCUSSION

21

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a

22 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered
23 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
24 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.”
25

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

26 as a prior petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). The court must also dismiss a second or successive
27 petition raising a new ground unless the petitioner can show that (1) the claim rests on a new,
28 retroactive, constitutional right or (2) the factual basis of the claim was not previously

1

1 discoverable through due diligence, and these new facts establish by clear and convincing
2 evidence that but for the constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the
3 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

4

5 meets these requirements. Section 2244(b)(3)(A) provides: “Before a second or successive
6 application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the
7 appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the
8 application.” In other words, Petitioner must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before he can
9 file a second or successive petition in the district court. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656–
10 657 (1996). This Court must dismiss any second or successive petition unless the Court of
11 Appeals has given Petitioner leave to file the petition because a district court lacks subject-matter
12 jurisdiction over a second or successive petition. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007).
In the instant petition, Petitioner challenges his 2006 convictions in the Kern County

13

14 Superior Court for violations of California Penal Code section 647.6. (ECF No. 1 at 2).1
15 Petitioner previously filed federal habeas petitions in this Court challenging the same
16 convictions. See Faulkner v. Mule Creek State Prison, No. 1:08-cv-00806-JMD (denied with
17 prejudice); Faulkner v. Knipp, No. 1:11-cv-01163-LJO-MJS (dismissed as unauthorized
18 successive petition); Faulkner v. Spearman, No. 1:17-cv-00695-DAD-SKO (findings and
19 recommendation to dismiss petition as successive); Faulkner v. Davies, No. 1:17-cv-0075220 DAD-SAB (petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Petitioner pro se).2
The Court finds that the instant petition is “second or successive” under § 2244(b).

21

22 Petitioner makes no showing that he has obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file this
23 petition. As Petitioner has not obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file this successive
24 petition, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s renewed application for relief
25 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and must dismiss the petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. at 157.
26 ///
27

1

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.
The Court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119
(9th Cir. 1980).
2

28

2

1

II.

2

RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas

3

4 corpus be DISMISSED as successive.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court

5

6 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304
7 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.
8 Within FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner
9 may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document
10 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The
11 assigned District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
12 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
13 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)
14 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 Dated:

July 25, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3