Benson v. Spearman
Filing
18
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/4/2018 RECOMMENDING 13 Motion to Dismiss be partially granted and this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JIMMY LEE BENSON,
12
13
14
No. 2:17-cv-1881 MCE KJN P
Petitioner,
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
M.E. SPEARMAN,
15
Respondent.
16
17
18
19
I. Introduction
Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with an application for a writ of habeas
20
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss this action as
21
successive and, in the alternative, barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Petitioner filed an
22
opposition; respondent did not file a reply.
23
24
As set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the motion to dismiss be granted.
II. Background
25
A San Joaquin County Superior Court jury found petitioner guilty of murder, three counts
26
of attempted murder, and participation in a street gang, as well as enhancements for personal and
27
intentional discharge of a firearm during the commission of a felony, causing great bodily injury
28
1
1
or death, participation in an offense where a principal personally and intentionally discharged a
2
firearm, causing great bodily injury or death, and the commission of an offense to benefit a street
3
gang. In March 2007, the trial court sentenced petitioner to life in prison without the possibility
4
of parole, plus four indeterminate terms of twenty-five years to life and a determinate term of
5
forty-two years and four months. The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District,
6
affirmed petitioner’s conviction and sentence in an unpublished opinion.1 The California
7
Supreme Court denied review on April 22, 2010.
8
III. Is the Petition Successive?
9
The court’s records reveal that petitioner has previously filed an application for a writ of
10
habeas corpus attacking the 2007 conviction and sentence challenged in this case. The previous
11
application was filed on January 18, 2011, and was denied on the merits on October 22, 2012.
12
Benson v. Biter, 2:11-cv-0150 JKS (E.D. Cal.). The petition is successive because petitioner
13
challenged his 2007 conviction in his prior federal habeas petition, which the court dismissed on
14
the merits. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007) (petition is successive if it
15
challenges “the same custody imposed by the same judgment of a state court” as a prior petition).
16
Petitioner must therefore obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit before the petition may
17
proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (“Before a second or successive application permitted
18
by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of
19
appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.”); see also Woods v.
20
Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Even if a petitioner can demonstrate that he qualifies
21
for one of these exceptions [to the bar on successive petitions], he must seek authorization from
22
the court of appeals before filing his new petition with the district court.”).2 No such
23
1
People v. Benson, 2010 WL 46681 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2010).
24
2
25
26
27
28
It does not appear that the instant claims fall within the exceptions to the bar on second or
successive petitions because the asserted claims are not based on “a new rule of constitutional
law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
unavailable.” Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 662 (2001). Rather, petitioner argues that People v.
Chiu, 45 Cal.4th 1172 (2009) and In re Hansen, [sic] Cal. App. 4th (July 1, 2014), should be
applied retroactively. (ECF No. 17 at 1.) Such cases are not U.S. Supreme Court cases.
Nevertheless, such determination must be made by the United States Court of Appeals upon
2
1
2
authorization has been obtained in this case.
Before petitioner can proceed with the instant application, he must move in the United
3
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for an order authorizing the district court to consider
4
the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Therefore, petitioner’s application must be dismissed
5
without prejudice to its re-filing upon obtaining authorization from the United States Court of
6
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
7
IV. Is the Petition Time-Barred?
8
9
10
Because petitioner failed to obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, this court need not address respondent’s alternative argument that the petition is barred by
the one year statute of limitations.
11
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
12
1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) be partially granted; and
13
2. This action be dismissed without prejudice.
14
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
15
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
16
after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
17
objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
18
Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the
19
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951
20
F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
21
Dated: April 4, 2018
22
23
24
/bens1881.mtd.hc.succ
25
26
27
28
petitioner’s motion for an order authorizing the district court to consider his second or successive
petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
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?