Dew v. Hatton et al
ORDER DISMISSING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Lack of Jurisdiction. In light of the Ninth Circuit's order, the Court dismisses the second or successive petition for writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) without prejudice. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 1/4/2019.(rmc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 16cv1985-MMA (MDD)
DAVID L. DEW,
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
SHAWN HATTON, Warden, et al.,
On August 5, 2016, Petitioner David L. Dew (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus (“petition”) pursuant to Title 28 of the United States
Code, Section 2254. See Doc. No. 1. On July 24, 2017, the Court issued an order
adopting the Recommendation of the magistrate judge that the petition be dismissed, and
dismissed the petition with prejudice. See Doc. No. 13. The Clerk of Court entered
judgment the same day. See Doc. No. 14. Petitioner appealed. See Doc. No. 15.
On November 30, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
issued an order vacating the judgment, and remanding with instructions to dismiss the
petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Doc. No. 19. The circuit court’s judgment took
effect December 31, 2018, and constitutes the formal mandate issued pursuant to Rule
41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The mandate is spread, and this Court
once again has jurisdiction.1
In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit noted that Petitioner previously filed a § 2254
petition challenging the same California conviction for second-degree felony murder.
See S.D. Cal. Case No. 3:98-cv-1533-J-POR. That petition was denied with prejudice on
September 30, 1990, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in Dew v. Clarke, 424 F.3d 381 (9th
Cir. 2000). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit indicated that Petitioner has neither sought nor
been granted authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. See Doc. No.
19 at 2. Thus, the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the second petition.
Accordingly, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s order, the Court DISMISSES the
second or successive petition for writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) without prejudice. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 4, 2019
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge
Due to a clerical error, the Court previously issued an order dismissing the petition prior to the
Ninth Circuit issuing the formal mandate; thus, the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
action at that time. See Doc. No. 20. However, the Court once again has subject matter jurisdiction over
the action and reissues its previous order of dismissal.
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?