Thomas v. People of the State of California, et al.
Filing
18
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/31/2018 GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP; DENYING 14 Motion for Appointment of Counsel; ORDERING Clerk of Court to randomly assign a U.S. District Judge to thi s action; and RECOMMENDING Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice and this court decline to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 21 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
LARRY JOSEPH THOMAS,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
15
v.
No. 2:18-cv-0906 AC P
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas
17
18
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
19
He has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel.
I.
20
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
21
Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford
22
the costs of suit. ECF Nos. 2, 11. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will
23
be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
II.
24
On March 22, 2018,1 petitioner filed his original petition. ECF No. 1. The petition was
25
26
27
28
Petition
1
Although petitioner would normally be entitled to the benefit of the prison mailbox rule,
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988), because his petition is dated April 1, 2018, after the
date it was received by the Clerk of the Court, the court is unable to determine when petitioner
handed the petition over for mailing.
1
1
accompanied by documentation showing that petitioner had an application for permission to file a
2
second or successive habeas petition pending in the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 3. The application in
3
the Ninth Circuit related to the same conviction being challenged by the petition in this court. Id.
4
at 4. The Ninth Circuit recently denied petitioner’s application, Thomas v. Paramo, No. 18-
5
70675, ECF No. 2 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2018), and petitioner has now filed an amended petition
6
(ECF No. 16). Both the original and amended petition challenge petitioner’s March 2000
7
conviction in Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 98F00484 directly and on the ground
8
that he is entitled to resentencing under Proposition 57. ECF Nos. 1, 16.
9
III.
Discussion
10
Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the court to
11
summarily dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
12
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” As set forth below, the
13
petition fails to state a cognizable claim for relief and will be dismissed.
14
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), a second or successive application for habeas relief
15
may not be filed in district court without prior authorization by the court of appeals. Felker v.
16
Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996). Prior authorization is a jurisdictional requisite. Burton v.
17
Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152-53 (2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001)
18
(once district court has recognized a petition as second or successive pursuant to § 2244(b), it
19
lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits). A petition is successive within the meaning of 28
20
U.S.C. § 2244(b) where it “seeks to add a new ground for relief” or “if it attacks the federal
21
court’s previous resolution of a claim on the merits.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532
22
(2005) (emphasis in original). “[A] ‘claim’ as used in § 2244(b) is an asserted federal basis for
23
relief from a state court’s judgment of conviction.” Id. at 530. “Even if a petitioner can
24
demonstrate that he qualifies for one of [the] exceptions [to filing a second or successive
25
petition], he must seek authorization from the court of appeals before filing his new petition with
26
the district court.” Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. §
27
2244(b)(3)).
28
////
2
1
Petitioner has submitted documentation showing that he sought leave of the Ninth Circuit
2
to file a second or successive petition challenging his 2000 conviction (ECF No. 3), thereby
3
indicating that he has previously challenged this conviction. A review of this court’s records
4
confirms that petitioner previously filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus attacking the
5
conviction and sentence challenged in this case. The previous application was filed by the Clerk
6
of the Court on March 19, 2004, and was denied on the merits on February 20, 2008. Thomas v.
7
Scribner, No. 2:04-cv-0733 MCE DAD (E.D. Cal.), ECF Nos. 1, 79, 90. This court takes judicial
8
notice of the record in that proceeding. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir.
9
1980) (“[A] court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases.”).
10
Before petitioner can proceed on his claims, he must submit a request to the United States
11
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to issue an order authorizing the district court to consider
12
the application and that request must be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Although petitioner
13
provides evidence that he requested the necessary authorization, the Ninth Circuit’s records show
14
that the request was denied. Thomas v. Paramo, No. 18-70675, ECF No. 2 (9th Cir. Sept. 18,
15
2018). Therefore, to the extent petitioner is attempting to directly challenge his 2000 conviction,
16
the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed as unauthorized by the Ninth
17
Circuit.
18
With respect to petitioner’s claim that he is entitled to resentencing under California’s
19
recently passed Proposition 57, he is mistaken as to the scope of Proposition 57. Proposition 57
20
created an amendment to the California Constitution that created an additional avenue for parole
21
consideration and altered the process for charging minors in criminal court. 2016 Cal. Legis.
22
Serv. Prop. 57 (West); Cal. Const. art. I, § 32; Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 604, 707. It appears
23
that petitioner is attempting to claim that he is entitled to parole consideration under Proposition
24
57. However, “it is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court
25
determinations on state-law questions.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991);
26
Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (habeas relief “is unavailable for alleged
27
error in the interpretation or application of state law”). This includes the interpretation or
28
application of state sentencing laws. Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116, 1118-19 (9th Cir. 1989)
3
1
(declining to address “[w]hether assault with a deadly weapon qualifies as a ‘serious felony’
2
under California’s sentence enhancement provisions [because it] is a question of state sentencing
3
law”). Accordingly, whether petitioner is eligible for parole consideration under Proposition 57 is
4
a state law issue that is not cognizable in federal habeas and the claim must therefore be
5
dismissed.
6
IV.
Motion for Counsel
7
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 14. There currently exists
8
no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d
9
453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2) authorizes the appointment of
10
counsel at any stage of the case if “the interests of justice so require.” In light of the
11
recommendation that the petition be dismissed, the court does not find that the interests of justice
12
would be served by the appointment of counsel and the request will be denied.
13
14
V.
Certificate of Appealability
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this court must
15
issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. A
16
certificate of appealability may issue only “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
17
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). For the reasons set forth in these
18
findings and recommendations, a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right has
19
not been made in this case. Therefore, no certificate of appealability should issue.
20
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
21
1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), is granted.
22
2. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 14) is denied.
23
3. The Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action.
24
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that:
25
1. The petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice.
26
2. This court decline to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C.
27
28
§ 2253.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
4
1
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days
2
after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
3
objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
4
Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the
5
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951
6
F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
7
DATED: October 31, 2018
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?