“When the AEDPA is in play, the district court may not, in the absence of 25 proper authorization from the court of appeals, consider a second or successive 26 habeas application.”
How later courts described this case
- “When the AEDPA is in play, the district court may not, in the absence of 25 proper authorization from the court of appeals, consider a second or successive 26 habeas application.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSE FELIPE VELASCO, NO. SACV 20-1889-JLS (AGR)
12
Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER ON
13
SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE
v.
14 PETITION; ORDER TRANSFERRING
MOTION TO NINTH CIRCUIT
15 CRAIG KOENIG, Warden,
16 Respondent.
17
18
Because Petitioner previously challenged the same underlying state-court
19
judgment in a prior habeas action that the Court dismissed with prejudice, and
20
because Petitioner lacks Ninth Circuit authorization to file a second or successive
21
habeas petition, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Petition for Writ of Habeas
22
Corpus.
23
I.
24
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
25
Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, the Court takes judicial notice of the records
26
in Petitioner’s prior federal habeas corpus action in the Central District of
27
28
1 California in Velasco v. Allison, No. SACV 12-1011-JLS (AGR) (C.D. Cal.)
2 (“Velasco I”).
3 On April 2, 2009, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury convicted
4 Petitioner of committing a lewd act upon a child, a lewd act upon a child under the
5 age of 14, and eight counts of rape. The jury found true that Petitioner committed
6 rape against more than one victim. On June 5, 2009, the trial court sentenced
7 Petitioner to 123 years to life. On January 27, 2011, the California Court of
8 Appeal affirmed the convictions. On April 13, 2011, the California Supreme Court
9 summarily denied Petitioner’s petition for review. People v. Velasco, Case No.
10 G042281, 2011 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 645, at *1-*3 (Jan. 27, 2011); Report at
2-3 (Velasco I, Dkt. No. 24).1
11
On June 20, 2012, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
12
Person in State Custody (“Petition”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in Velasco I.
13
(Dkt. No. 1.) The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation
14
(“Report”) that recommended that judgment be entered denying the petition and
15
dismissing the action with prejudice. (Velasco I, Dkt. No. 24.) On March 24,
16
2014, the Court entered an order accepting the Report, entered judgment denying
17
the Petition and dismissing the action with prejudice, and also denied a Certificate
18
of Appealability. (Id., Dkt. Nos. 26-28.) On March 24, 2016, the Ninth Circuit
19
affirmed. Velasco v. Allison, 645 Fed. Appx. 598 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct.
20
379 (2016).
21
On September 28, 2020, Petitioner filed a Motion for Permission to File
22
Attached 2254 Petition With Newly Discovered Evidence, along with a Petition for
23
Writ of Habeas Corpus. Velasco v. Koenig, Case No. SACV 20-1889 JLS (AGR)
24
25
26 1 Citations are to the page and document numbers generated by the
Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (“CM/ECF”) system in the
27 header of the documents.
28
1 (“Velasco II”). (Dkt. Nos. 1, 3.) Petitioner again challenged the same state court
2 conviction and sentence that he previously challenged in Velasco I.
3 II.
4 DISCUSSION
5 The Petition was filed after enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective
6 Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Therefore, the Court applies the AEDPA
7 in reviewing the Petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997).
8 The AEDPA provides, in pertinent part: “Before a second or successive
9 application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall
10 move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court
to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). A district court does not
11
have jurisdiction to consider a “second or successive” Petition absent
12
authorization from the Ninth Circuit. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007).
13
The instant Petition is second or successive because Petitioner again
14
challenges the same state court conviction and sentence that he previously
15
challenged in Velasco I. A Petition is second or successive “if the facts
16
underlying the claim occurred by the time of the initial petition” and “if the petition
17
challenges the same state court judgment as the initial petition.” Brown v. Muniz,
18
889 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied Brown v. Hatton, 139 S.Ct. 841
19
(2019); see also Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 332 (2010). Thus, the
20
instant Petition is second or successive.
21
A review of the Ninth Circuit’s online database indicates that Petitioner has
22
not received authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second
23
or successive Petition. See Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir.
24
2001) (“When the AEDPA is in play, the district court may not, in the absence of
25
proper authorization from the court of appeals, consider a second or successive
26
habeas application.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
27
28
1 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
2 | Courts provides that “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any
3 | attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the
4 | judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” The
5 | Court therefore dismisses the Petition as a second or successive Petition for
6 | which it lacks jurisdiction.
7 ll.
8 ORDER
g | IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing
19 | the Petition and action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
1] | [TIS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Permission to File Attached 2254
2 Petition With Newly Discovered Evidence is transferred to the Ninth Circuit
13
14 DATED: November 1, 2020
15
16 helt
JOSEPHINE L STATON.
18 United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28