Sundberg v. State of California et al

Filing 9

Summary Dismissal of Successive Petition Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A) Gatekeeper Provision. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 1/17/2023.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)

Download PDF
Case 3:22-cv-01897-CAB-BLM Document 9 Filed 01/17/23 PageID.57 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KELLY FRITHIOF SUNDBERG, Petitioner, 12 13 v. 14 JANINE WALLACE, Warden, et al., 15 Case No. 3:22-cv-1897-CAB-BLM SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER PROVISION Respondents. 16 17 On November 30, 2022, Petitioner, currently in custody at Patton State Hospital after 18 pleading guilty by reason of insanity, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. On December 5, 2022, the Court granted Petitioner’s 20 request to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the Petition for failure to state a 21 cognizable claim. ECF No. 4. The Court also noted that, while it was not entirely clear, it 22 appeared Petitioner had previously challenged his detention under § 2254. Id. The Court 23 gave Petitioner leave to file an amended petition and, after an extension of time, he did so 24 on January 11, 2023. See ECF No. 8. For the reasons discussed below, this case is 25 summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 26 PETITION BARRED BY GATEKEEPER PROVISION 27 As the Court noted in its previous dismissal order, this is not the first time Petitioner 28 has attempted to challenge his custody in Patton State Hospital via federal petition for writ 1 3:22-cv-1897-CAB-BLM Case 3:22-cv-01897-CAB-BLM Document 9 Filed 01/17/23 PageID.58 Page 2 of 3 1 of habeas corpus. On December 30, 2016, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ 2 of Habeas Corpus in case No. 3:16-cv-3127. See Pet. Sundberg v Oreol, Civ. Case No. 3 3:16-cv-3127-WQH-AGS (S.D. Cal.), ECF No. 1. In that petition, Petitioner challenged 4 his detention at Patton State Hospital as well. See id. at 1–2. On March 28, 2019, this Court 5 dismissed the petition because it had been filed after the expiration of the one-year statute 6 of limitations. See Order, Sundberg v. Oreol, 16cv1372-WQH-AGS, ECF No. 62 (S.D. 7 Cal. Mar. 28, 2019). Petitioner appealed that determination and on May 1, 2020, the Ninth 8 Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s decision. See Order, Sundberg v. Oreol, No. 9 19-55371 (9th Cir. May 1, 2020). 10 It is now clear Petitioner seeking to challenge the sentence imposed as a result the 11 same conviction he challenged in his prior federal habeas petition. To do so, he must obtain 12 an order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider a 13 successive petition, the petition may not be filed in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 14 2244(b)(3)(A); see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007) (a petition is 15 successive where it challenges “the same custody imposed by the same judgment of a state 16 court” as a prior petition).1 A successive application is permissible “only if it rests on a 17 new rule of constitutional law, facts that were previously unavailable, or facts that would 18 be sufficient to show constitutional error in the petitioner's conviction.” 28 U.S.C. 19 § 2244(b)(2). “Even if a petitioner can demonstrate that he qualifies for one of these 20 exceptions, he must seek authorization from the court of appeals before filing his new 21 petition with the district court.” Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 2008). 22 CONCLUSION 23 Because there is no indication Petitioner has obtained permission from the Ninth 24 Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive petition, this Court cannot consider his 25 26 1 27 28 It appears Petitioner submitted an Application for Permission to File a Second or Successive Habeas Corpus Petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on December 19, 2022. That application is currently pending. See Sundberg v. Oreol, No. 22-2048 (9th Cir. Dec. 19. 2022), ECF No. 8 at 9. 2 3:22-cv-1897-CAB-BLM Case 3:22-cv-01897-CAB-BLM Document 9 Filed 01/17/23 PageID.59 Page 3 of 3 1 Petition. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice to Petitioner 2 filing a petition in this court if he obtains the necessary order from the Ninth Circuit Court 3 of Appeals. Further, because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the 4 denial of a constitutional right,” and reasonable jurists would not find debatable this 5 Court’s assessment of his claims, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. See 28 6 U.S.C. § 2253(c); see also Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 11(a) (requiring the district 7 court that issues an order denying a habeas petition to either grant or deny a certificate of 8 appealability). 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 17, 2023 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 3:22-cv-1897-CAB-BLM

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?