Rodgers v. Ross

Filing 9

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - Petitioners Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 1 ) is GRANTED. Petitioners motion for authorization to file a second or successive petition (Dkt. 3 ) is DENIED. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 4 ) is DISMISSED without prejudice as an unauthorized successive petition. Signed by Judge Amanda K Brailsford. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (lm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

DANIEL EDWARD RODGERS,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00270-AKB
Petitioner,
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
v.
WARDEN ROSS,
Respondent.

Petitioner Daniel Edward Rodgers has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
challenging his state court conviction for first-degree murder. (See Dkt. 4; Dkt. 3 at 2) (stating
was convicted in “1988 on or about”); State v. Rodgers, 2018 WL 1722626, at *1 (Idaho Ct.
App. Apr. 10, 2018) (per curiam) (stating that Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder
and sentenced in September 1988); Idaho Dep’t of Corr. Resident Search,
https://www.idoc.idaho.gov/content/prisons/resident-client-search/details/28075 (accessed
Aug. 9, 2024) (stating that Petitioner is incarcerated on a conviction for first-degree murder). The
Court now reviews the Petition to determine whether it is subject to summary dismissal pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”).
REVIEW OF PETITION
1.

Standard of Law for Review of Petition
Federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is available to petitioners who show

that they are held in custody under a state court judgment and that such custody violates the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The Court is
required to review a habeas corpus petition upon receipt to determine whether it is subject to

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 1

summary dismissal. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Summary dismissal is
appropriate where “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Id.
2.

Discussion
Petitioner previously brought a habeas corpus action in this Court challenging the same

first-degree murder conviction and sentence. Rodgers v. Valley, Case No. 1:22-cv-00153-AKB
(D. Idaho). That petition was denied on the merits on December 15, 2023. (See id. at Dkt. 20,
21).
Before a prisoner can file a second or successive federal habeas corpus petition
challenging the same conviction, parole revocation, or sentence as in his first habeas corpus
petition, he must first obtain authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). A federal district court may not, “in the absence of proper
authorization from the [Ninth Circuit], consider a second or successive habeas application.”
Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, absent authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
Petitioner cannot proceed with his current Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus because he is
challenging the same conviction that was adjudicated in the previous federal habeas corpus
action. Petitioner has not shown he has obtained the required authorization from the court of
appeals. Though Petitioner has filed a motion for authorization in this Court, the Court has no
power to grant it.
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition in this case is subject to summary dismissal.

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Petitioner’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 1) is GRANTED.
Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee when he next receives income in his
prison trust account.

2.

Petitioner’s motion for authorization to file a second or successive petition
(Dkt. 3) is DENIED.

3.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 4) is DISMISSED without prejudice
as an unauthorized successive petition.

4.

The Court does not find its resolution of this habeas matter to be reasonably
debatable, and a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c); Habeas Rule 11. If Petitioner files a timely notice of appeal, the Clerk
of Court shall forward a copy of the notice of appeal, together with this Order, to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petitioner may seek a
certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit by filing a request in that court.

DATED: August 29, 2024

_________________________
Amanda K. Brailsford
U.S. District Court Judge

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 3