(HC) Iseli v. Lynch

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 8/29/24 GRANTING 5 petitioner's Motion to Proceed IFP. The Clerk is directed to assign a district judge to this action. Case ASSIGNED to District Judge Dale A. Drozd. The new case num ber is 2:24-cv-0821-DAD-JDP (HC). It is RECOMMENDED that 1 the petition be DISMISSED as successive and unauthorized. Matter REFERRED to District Judge Dale A. Drozd. Within 14 days of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. (Salmeron, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRANDEN WILLIE ISELI,

12

Petitioner,

ORDER

Respondent.

GRANTING PETITIONER’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND DIRECTING THE CLERK
OF COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT
JUDGE

13
14
15

v.
JEFF LYNCH,

Case No. 2:24-cv-00821-JDP (HC)

16

ECF No. 5

17

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

18

THAT THE PETITION BE DISMISSED AS
SUCCESSIVE AND UNAUTHORIZED

19
20

ECF No. 1

21

Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action under section 2254. ECF No. 1. It appears,

22

for the reasons stated below, that this petition is successive and unauthorized. I will recommend

23

this action be dismissed on that basis. If petitioner has, in fact, obtained authorization, or if some

24

other basis justifies retraction of the recommendations, he may indicate as much in his objections.

25

I will grant petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 5.

26

The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

27

Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine

28

the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the
1

1

petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019);

2

Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998).

3

Petitioner filed this petition challenging convictions for attempted murder with

4

premeditation and first-degree murder handed down in San Joaquin County superior court. ECF

5

No. 1 at 2. It appears that these convictions were previously challenged in a federal habeas

6

petition that was filed in this court on August 22, 2022, which was denied on the merits. See Iseli

7

v. People of the State of California, No. 2:22-cv-01483-TLN-EFB, ECF Nos. 1, 23, & 31.

8

Accordingly, this petition is successive. See Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1273 (9th Cir.

9

2001) (“Generally, a new petition is ‘second or successive’ if it raises claims that were or could

10

have been adjudicated on their merits in an earlier petition.”). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A),

11

a petitioner may not bring a second or successive habeas petition seeking the same, previously

12

denied relief unless he obtains proper authorization to do so from the Court of Appeals. Id.

13

(“Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court,

14

the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district

15

court to consider the application.”). The current petition does not indicate that such authorization

16

has been obtained. Accordingly, I recommend it be dismissed. As stated above, if petitioner does

17

have authorization from the court of appeals, or if some other ground justifies this case

18

proceeding, he may state as much in his objections to these recommendations.

19

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

20

1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5, is GRANTED.

21

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action.

22

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED as

23
24

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

25

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

26

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the

27

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to

28

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed
2

1

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

2

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See

3

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

4

1991).

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
Dated:

August 29, 2024

8

JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3