(HC) Xiong v. Lizarraga

Filing 15

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/7/2019 ORDERING Clerk to randomly assign a District Judge to this action and RECOMMENDING 9 Motion to Dismiss be granted and 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Assigned and referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. 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

YEE XIONG

12

No. 2:19-cv-0303 AC P
Petitioner,

13

v.

14

J. LIZARRAGA,

15

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
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. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition (ECF

19

No. 9), which Petitioner opposes (ECF No. 11). For the reasons stated below, the court finds that

20

this is an unauthorized second or successive petition and will therefore recommend that the

21

petition be dismissed.
I.

22

Procedural History
In May 2008, Petitioner Yee Xiong was convicted of murder, with additional sentencing

23
24

enhancements that were found to be true. ECF No. 1 at 1; Lod. Doc. 1 (ECF No. 10-1). As a

25

result, he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, as well as a consecutive term of

26

twenty-five years to life and an additional one-year consecutive term. Id.; Lod. Doc. 2 (ECF No.

27

10-2) at 6.

28

////
1

1

Petitioner’s first application for a federal writ of habeas corpus was filed in this court on

2

March 11, 2011,1 and denied on the merits on August 20, 2012. Xiong v. Biter (Xiong I), No.

3

2:11-cv-1314 JKS; Lod. Doc. 13 (ECF No. 10-13) at 4, 17. The Ninth Circuit denied a certificate

4

of appealability on August 9, 2013. Lod. Doc. 14 (ECF No. 10-14).

5

The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed on February 12, 2019. ECF No. 1.

6

II.

7

Discussion
A state prisoner may challenge the constitutionality of his sentence in federal court

8

through a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). However, second or successive federal

9

habeas petitions are not permitted except by an order from the “appropriate court of appeals . . .

10

authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). If a

11

petitioner does not receive authorization from the Court of Appeals to file a second or successive

12

habeas corpus application prior to filing in the district court, “the District Court [is] without

13

jurisdiction to entertain it.” Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007).

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

conviction.” Id. at 530. “Even if a petitioner can demonstrate that he qualifies for one of [the]

19

exceptions [to filing a second or successive petition], he must seek authorization from the court of

20

appeals before filing his new petition with the district court.” Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888

21

(9th Cir. 2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)).

22

Petitioner asserts four claims for relief in his current petition; all challenge the same state

23

court conviction at issue in Xiong I. Because there is no evidence that petitioner has received or

24

even requested an order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider his

25

second or successive petition, this court may not consider the matter. Accordingly, the

26
27
28

1

The filing date of documents submitted when petitioner was proceeding pro se is determined
based on the prison mailbox rule. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (documents are
considered filed at the time prisoner delivers them to prison authorities for mailing).
2

1
2

undersigned will recommend dismissal of the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Respondent also argues that this petition was brought outside the statute of limitations and

3

therefore is untimely. ECF No. 9 at 3-5. Because the petition is clearly an unauthorized second

4

or successive petition, this court does not reach the issue of timeliness.

5
6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly
assign a United States District Judge to this action.

7

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) be

8

granted and the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice for

9

lack of jurisdiction.

10

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

11

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days

12

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

13

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

14

Findings and Recommendations.” L.R. 304(d). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections

15

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

16

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

17

DATED: October 7, 2019

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3