Pulley v. Paramo et al

Filing 72

ORDER Denying 71 Motion to Reopen Proceedings. Petitioner's Motion is DENIED, and this second or successive petition is DISMISSED. A certificate of appealability will not issue. Petitioner has not shown "that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The judgment and the order dismissing the Petition remain in effect. This case remains closed. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 4/5/2022. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (tcf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT G. PULLEY,

Case No.: 14-CV-2034 JLS (MDD)
Petitioner,

12
13
14

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO REOPEN
PROCEEDINGS

v.
DANIEL PARAMO, Warden; and
KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney
General,

15
16

(ECF No. 71)

Respondents.

17
18

This closed federal habeas corpus action was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by pro se

19

state prisoner Robert G. Pulley. The Court denied the Petition and entered judgment in

20

favor of Respondents on November 14, 2016. ECF Nos. 54, 55. Petitioner filed multiple

21

appeals in this matter, see ECF Nos. 56, 57, 63, all of which were denied or dismissed as

22

duplicative, see ECF Nos. 61, 65, 66. Petitioner filed a post-judgment motion on June 2,

23

2021, ECF No. 68, which the Court construed as a second or successive habeas petition

24

and subsequently denied (the “Order”), ECF No. 69. The present Motion, which Petitioner

25

titled “Motion to Reopen Proceedings,” followed. ECF No. 71.

26

The present Motion repeats the same arguments previously rejected by the Court as

27

a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Compare ECF No. 68 at

28

23–24 (“[T]he district court fail[ed] to properly address and properly consider . . . new
1
14-CV-2034 JLS (MDD)

1

ineffective assistance of counsel claims containing newly presented exculpatory evidence

2

counsel withheld from the jury[.]”), with ECF No. 71 at 14–15 (“[T]he district court fail[ed]

3

to properly address and properly consider . . . new ineffective assistance of counsel claims

4

containing newly presented exculpatory evidence counsel withheld from the jury[.]”). For

5

the reasons articulated in the Order, the Court finds this Motion is also a second or

6

successive petition. See ECF No. 69. For those reasons stated in the Order, Petitioner’s

7

Motion is DENIED, and this second or successive petition is DISMISSED.

8

A certificate of appealability will not issue. Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of

9

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

10

constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

11

court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

12

The judgment and the order dismissing the Petition remain in effect. This case remains

13

closed.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 5, 2022

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
14-CV-2034 JLS (MDD)