Cruz v. Unknown
Filing
12
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/28/2014 DISMISSING CASE for lack of jurisdiction; DECLINING to issue a Certificate of Appealability. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SANTIAGO JIMMY CRUZ,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
v.
No. 2:14-cv-1317-EFB P
ORDER
UNKNOWN,
15
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner, a state prisoner without counsel, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
18
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 The court has reviewed the petition as required by Rule 4 of the
19
Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, and finds that the petition is second or successive
20
and must therefore be dismissed.
21
A petition is second or successive if it makes “claims contesting the same custody
22
imposed by the same judgment of a state court” that the petitioner previously challenged, and on
23
which the federal court issued a decision on the merits. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007);
24
see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-86 (2000). Before filing a second or successive
25
petition in a district court, a petitioner must obtain from the appellate court “an order authorizing
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 district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Without an order from
2
the appellate court, the district court is without jurisdiction to consider a second or successive
3
petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. 147.
4
In the present action, petitioner challenges a judgment of conviction entered in the Yolo
5
County Superior Court on November 24, 1997, for arson and making terrorist threats, resulting in
6
a state prison sentence of 125 years to life. See Petition (ECF No. 5) at 1-2. The court has
7
examined its records, and finds that petitioner challenged the same conviction in an earlier action.
8
In Cruz v. Pliler, No. 2:02-cv-0545-FCD-EFB, the court considered petitioner’s challenge to this
9
1997 conviction. See Cruz, ECF. No. 31 (magistrate judge’s August 5, 2005 findings and
10
recommendations to dismiss petition as untimely); ECF No. 33 (district judge’s September 21,
11
2005 order adopting findings and recommendations and dismissing petitioner’s application for a
12
writ of habeas corpus as untimely).
13
The earlier filed petition was dismissed as untimely, which constitutes a decision on the
14
merits. See McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[D]ismissal of a habeas
15
petition as untimely constitutes a disposition on the merits and [ ] a further petition challenging
16
the same conviction [is] ‘second or successive’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).”); Murray v.
17
Greiner, 394 F.3d 78, 81 (2d Cir. 2005) (dismissal of habeas petition as time barred “constitutes
18
an adjudication on the merits that renders future petitions under § 2254 challenging the same
19
conviction ‘second or successive’ petitions under § 2244(b).”).
20
Since petitioner challenges the same judgment now that he previously challenged and
21
which was adjudicated on the merits, the petition now pending is second or successive. Petitioner
22
offers no evidence that the appellate court has authorized this court to consider a second or
23
successive petition. Since petitioner has not demonstrated that the appellate court has authorized
24
this court to consider a second or successive petition, this action must be dismissed for lack of
25
jurisdiction. See Burton, 549 U.S. 147; Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001)
26
(per curiam).
27
/////
28
/////
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: July 28, 2014.
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?