“petitioner’s burden is higher” under statute to 19 bring successive habeas action
How later courts described this case
- “petitioner’s burden is higher” under statute to 19 bring successive habeas action
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
9 JS-6
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
Case No. CV 20-10934 ODW (MRW)
13 | HENRY EDWARD DIAZ,
Petitioner ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
14 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
15 Vv.
16 | STU SHERMAN, Warden,
17 Respondent.
18
19 qe wos
The Court summarily dismisses Petitioner’s habeas action without
20
prejudice as successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244.
21
22 ws .
1. Petitioner is a state prisoner serving a sixteen-year prison term
23
for manslaughter.
24
2. Petitioner previously sought federal habeas relief in this
25
district regarding his manslaughter conviction. The Court denied relief on
26
the merits. Diaz v. Sherman, CV 19-591 ODW (MRW) (C.D. Cal.).
27
28
1 According to the Court’s docket, Petitioner did not seek appellate review of
2 that decision.
3 3. The current petition appears to challenge his manslaughter
4 conviction again. However, the petition was not accompanied by a
5 certificate from the Ninth Circuit authorizing a second or successive
6 petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244.
7 4. The Attorney General moved to dismiss the action as an
8 unauthorized second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Under
9 that provision of AEDPA, the Attorney General contends the Court does
10 not have jurisdiction over the current action. (Docket # 5.)
11 5. Magistrate Judge Wilner ordered Petitioner to file a response
12 to Respondent’s dismissal motion. The order expressly advised Petitioner
13 that failure to respond to the order may result in a recommendation that
14 the matter be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Docket # 6.)
15 6. Petitioner failed to submit a timely response. Judge Wilner
16 then ordered Petitioner to show cause why the government’s motion to
17 dismiss should not be granted, and why he failed to oppose the motion as
18 required by the local rules. The OSC also warned Petitioner that his
19 failure to respond will lead to a dismissal recommendation. (Docket # 7.)
20 7. To date, Petitioner has not responded to Judge Wilner’s order
21 to show cause or the government’s dismissal motion.
22 * * *
23 8. If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person
24 detained is not entitled” to habeas relief, a court may summarily dismiss a
25 habeas action. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; see also Rule 4 of Rules Governing
26 Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts (petition may be
27 summarily dismissed if petitioner plainly not entitled to relief); Local Civil
28
1 Rule 72-3.2 (magistrate judge may submit proposed order for summary
2 dismissal to district judge “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition
3 [ ] that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”).
4 9. Under federal law, a state prisoner is generally required to
5 present all constitutional challenges to a state conviction in a single federal
6 action. “Before a second or successive [habeas petition] is filed in the
7 district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals
8 for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.”
9 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (emphasis added). A prisoner must obtain
10 authorization from the Court of Appeals to pursue such a successive habeas
11 petition before the new petition may be filed in district court. Id.; Burton v.
12 Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 156 (2007) (district court without jurisdiction to
13 consider successive habeas action when prisoner “neither sought nor
14 received authorization from the Court of Appeals before filing”).
15 10. “If the petition is second or successive, then the district court
16 lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss the petition unless and until the court
17 of appeals grants an application to file it.” Brown v. Muniz, 889 F.3d 661,
18 667, 676 (9th Cir. 2018) (“petitioner’s burden is higher” under statute to
19 bring successive habeas action); Prince v. Lizzaraga, 733 F. App’x 382, 384
20 (9th Cir. 2018) (prisoner “must first apply to this [appellate] court for
21 permission to have his petition heard in the district court”).
22 11. Local Rule of Court 7-9 requires a party to file a memorandum
23 stating the basis for that party’s opposition to a motion. Local Rule 7-12
24 states that the “failure to file any required document [ ] may be deemed
25 consent to the granting or denial of the motion.”
26 * * *
27
28
1 12. Petitioner’s current habeas action is subject to summary
2 | dismissal. The petition challenges the same manslaughter conviction for
3 | which he already received habeas review in this federal court. Petitioner
4 | does not appear to have obtained permission from the Ninth Circuit to
5 | bring a new habeas action in this Court.
6 13. Further, despite a clear scheduling order from the assigned
7 | magistrate judge and subsequent OSC, Petitioner failed to file a timely
8 | opposition in response to the motion. Petitioner’s failure to respond to the
9 | dismissal motion signifies his consent to the dismissal of the action as
10 | successive. L.R. 7-12.
11 14. For these reasons, the Court does not have jurisdiction under
12 | Section 2244(b)(3)(A) to review Petitioner’s habeas claims. The current
13 | petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b);
14 | Burton, 549 U.S. at 156; Brown, 889 F.3d at 667; Prince, 733 F. App’x at
15 | 384.
16 kok ok
17 Therefore, the present action is hereby DISMISSED without
18 | prejudice as successive.
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
90 a .
21
22 | Dated: April 14, 2021
93 HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24 | Presented by:
25
Vil]
27 | HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER
28 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE