Stribling v. Baughman

Filing 10

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 03/31/17 ORDERING that the Clerk is directed to indicate on the docket petitioner's current address of record is High Desert State Prison and to randomly assign a district judge to this action; this case has been RANDOMLY ASSIGNED to U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez; Magistrate Judge Allison Claire remains the Magistrate Judge assigned. The case number on all future filings shall be: 2:17-cv-0253 JAM AC (HC). And RECOMMENDING that the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed without prejudice to its refiling with a copy of an order from the USCA authorizing petitioner to file a second or successive petition and the case be closed. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 21 days. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AARON STRIBLING,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-0253 AC P

v.

ORDER and

DAVID BAUGHMAN,

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondents.

16
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

17
18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate

19

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c).
By order filed February 15, 2017, this court directed petitioner to submit an application to

20
21

proceed in forma pauperis or the $5.00 filing fee. See ECF No. 9. That order was served on

22

petitioner’s then current address of record, California State Prison Sacramento. Review of the

23

Inmate Locator website operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation1

24

indicates that petitioner is now incarcerated at High Desert State Prison. Accordingly, the Clerk

25

1

26
27
28

See http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/ (Inmate Locator website operated by the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation). This Court may take judicial notice of facts that
are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also City of Sausalito v. O'Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1224 n.2 (9th
Cir. 2004) (“We may take judicial notice of a record of a state agency not subject to reasonable
dispute.”).
1

1

of Court will be directed to indicate on the docket petitioner’s current address and to serve a copy

2

of this order on petitioner at High Desert State Prison.

3

Notwithstanding the court’s last order, review of the instant petition and petitioner’s other

4

filings in this court demonstrate that he is pursuing in this case a second petition for writ of

5

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner’s first habeas petition was filed in this

6

court in December 2012 and dismissed in 2013 because barred by the statute of limitations. See

7

Stribling v. Grounds, Case No. 2:12-cv-03084 MCE KJN P (E.D. Cal.). Both that petition and

8

the instant petition challenge petitioner’s 2007 conviction.

9

Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this court is required to conduct

10

a preliminary review of all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Pursuant to

11

Rule 4, this court must summarily dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and

12

any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.”

13

A second or successive application for habeas relief may not be filed in district court

14

without prior authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b);

15

Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-57 (1996). Prior authorization is a jurisdictional requisite.

16

Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir.

17

2001) (once district court has recognized a petition as second or successive pursuant to § 2244(b),

18

it lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits). The district court has discretion either to transfer a

19

successive petition to the Court of Appeals or to dismiss the petition. United States v. Winestock,

20

340 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2003) (§ 2255 case); Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 139–140 (3rd

21

Cir. 2002).

22

A petition is successive within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) where it “seeks to add

23

a new ground for relief,” or “if it attacks the federal court’s previous resolution of a claim on the

24

merits . . .” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005) (emphasis deleted). “[A] ‘claim’ as

25

used in § 2244(b) is an asserted federal basis for relief from a state court’s judgment of

26

conviction.” Id. at 530. “A habeas petition is second or successive only if it raises claims that

27

were or could have been adjudicated on the merits.” McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th

28

Cir.2009) (citing Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir.2008)).
2

1

Petitioner is presently “contesting the same custody imposed by the same judgment of a

2

state court” that he challenged in Stribling v. Grounds, Case No. 2:12-cv-03084 MCE KJN P

3

(E.D. Cal.); therefore he is “required to receive authorization from the Court of Appeals before

4

filing his second challenge. Because he did not do so, the District Court [is] without jurisdiction

5

to entertain it.” Burton, 549 U.S. at 153.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. The Clerk of Court is directed to indicate on the docket petitioner’s current address of

8
9

record is High Desert State Prison; and
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a district judge to this action.

10

Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

11

1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, be dismissed without

12

prejudice to its refiling with a copy of an order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

13

authorizing petitioner to file a second or successive petition; and

14

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

15

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

16

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty one days

17

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

18

objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

19

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the

20

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

21

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

22

DATED: March 31, 2017

23
24
25
26
27
28
3