Chism v. Davis
Filing
4
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/31/2013 ORDERING that this action is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction and the court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
WILLIAM H. CHISM, III,
11
Petitioner,
12
13
No. 2:13-cv-2078-EFB P
v.
ORDER
RON DAVIS, Warden,
14
Respondent.
15
Petitioner, a state prisoner without counsel, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
16
17
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 The court has reviewed the petition as required by Rule 4 of the
18
Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, and finds that the petition is second or successive
19
and must therefore be dismissed.
20
A petition is second or successive if it makes “claims contesting the same custody
21
imposed by the same judgment of a state court” that the petitioner previously challenged, and on
22
which the federal court issued a decision on the merits. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007);
23
see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-86 (2000). Before filing a second or successive
24
petition in a district court, a petitioner must obtain from the appellate court “an order authorizing
25
the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Without an order from
26
27
28
1
This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
and is before the undersigned pursuant to petitioner’s consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; see also E.D.
Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).
1
the appellate court, the district court is without jurisdiction to consider a second or successive
2
petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. 147.
3
In the present action, petitioner challenges a judgment of conviction entered in the
4
Sacramento County Superior Court on June 22, 2001, for rape, lewd acts on a child under
5
fourteen, oral copulation, forced oral copulation, and having sustained a prior strike. See Petition
6
(ECF No. 1) at 1 (referencing criminal case number 00F05616). The court has examined its
7
records, and finds that petitioner challenged the same conviction in an earlier action. In Chism v.
8
Clark, No. 2:08-cv-2260-WBS-EFB, the court considered petitioner’s challenge to his 2001
9
Sacramento County Superior Court conviction of 11 felony sex offenses, one misdemeanor sex
10
offense, and felony failure to register as a sex offender. See Chism, ECF. No. 24 (magistrate
11
judge’s February 3, 2010 finding and recommendations to dismiss petition as untimely); ECF No.
12
26 (district judge’s March 12, 2010 order adopting findings and recommendations and dismissing
13
petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely); see also id., ECF No. 1 (petition,
14
referencing criminal case number 00F05616).
15
The earlier filed petition was dismissed as untimely, which constitutes a decision on the
16
merits. See McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[D]ismissal of a habeas
17
petition as untimely constitutes a disposition on the merits and [ ] a further petition challenging
18
the same conviction [is] ‘second or successive’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).”); Murray v.
19
Greiner, 394 F.3d 78, 81 (2d Cir. 2005) (dismissal of habeas petition as time barred “constitutes
20
an adjudication on the merits that renders future petitions under § 2254 challenging the same
21
conviction ‘second or successive’ petitions under § 2244(b).”).
22
Since petitioner challenges the same judgment now that he previously challenged and
23
which was adjudicated on the merits, the petition now pending is second or successive. Petitioner
24
offers no evidence that the appellate court has authorized this court to consider a second or
25
successive petition. Since petitioner has not demonstrated that the appellate court has authorized
26
this court to consider a second or successive petition, this action must be dismissed for lack of
27
jurisdiction. See Burton, 549 U.S. 147; Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001)
28
(per curiam).
2
1
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
2
and the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
3
Dated: October 31, 2013.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
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?