# Cesar Noel Hernandez v. Warden

> District Court, C.D. California · April 20, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10040718

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** April 20, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10040718

## Opinion text

1

2
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 20-7846 GW (MRW)
13 CESAR NOEL HERNANDEZ,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
14 Petitioner,
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
15 v. JUDGE
16 WARDEN,
17 Respondent.
18

19
20 The Court summarily dismisses this action pursuant to the
21 successive habeas petition rule under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2243 and 2244.
22 * * *
23 Original Conviction and Federal Habeas Proceedings
24 1. Petitioner is currently serving a life term in state prison. In
25 2007, a state court jury convicted Petitioner of murder for shooting a man
26 to death at a cockfight. (Docket # 10-1 at 2, 11.)
27 2. In 2009 after the conclusion of his state appeals, Petitioner
28 filed a habeas petition in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Hernandez v.
1 Yates, ED CV 09-1133 GW (RNB) (C.D. Cal.). The sole claim in the
2 petition challenged the proof supporting Petitioner’s conviction for
3 premeditated murder. The Court accepted the Report and
4 Recommendation of the previous magistrate judge (now-retired Judge
5 Block) to deny relief on Petitioner’s sufficiency-of-evidence claim.
6 Current Federal Habeas Action
7 3. In 2020, Petitioner filed the current action in this Court under
8 Section 2254. His First Amended Petition presents several claims alleging
9 the inadequacy of his trial lawyer’s performance, instructional error, and
10 prosecutorial misconduct. Petitioner also claims that he recently
11 discovered information about an injury he suffered in a knife attack in the
12 1980s when he lived in the Philippines. Petitioner contends that this “new”
13 evidence is relevant to a fight that Petitioner engaged in before he
14 committed the shooting for which he was criminally convicted. (Docket
15 # 4.)
16 4. Magistrate Judge Wilner screened the 2020 habeas action.
17 Judge Wilner noted that the action was not accompanied by a certificate
18 from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing a second habeas
19 action under 28 U.S.C. § 2244. (Docket # 3, 5.)
20 5. Even so, the California Attorney General was directed to
21 address the new action and evaluate Petitioner’s claim of newly discovered
22 evidence. The Attorney General moved to dismiss the action as successive
23 and untimely. (Docket # 10.)
24 6. Petitioner filed two pleadings in response to the dismissal
25 motion. (Docket # 17, 19.) The bulk of the opposition filings addressed the
26 merits of Petitioner’s claims. However, in his February 2021 submission,
27 Petitioner effectively acknowledged that his current action is successive.
28
1 Petitioner stated that he “will file a motion for leave to file a second
2 petition” pursuant to AEDPA. (Docket # 19 at 3.) A review of the district
3 court and Ninth Circuit dockets reveals that Petitioner has not done so to
4 date, though.
5 Relevant Law and Analysis
6 7. If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person
7 detained is not entitled” to habeas relief, a court may summarily dismiss a
8 habeas action. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; see also Rule 4 of Rules Governing
9 Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts (petition may be
10 summarily dismissed if petitioner plainly not entitled to relief); Local Civil
11 Rule 72-3.2 (magistrate judge may submit proposed order for summary
12 dismissal to district judge “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition
13 [ ] that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”).
14 * * *
15 8. Under federal law, a state prisoner is generally required to
16 present all constitutional challenges to a state conviction in a single federal
17 action. “Before a second or successive [habeas petition] is filed in the
18 district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals
19 for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.”
20 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
21 9. A prisoner must obtain authorization from the Court of
22 Appeals to pursue such a successive habeas petition before the new petition
23 may be filed in district court. Id.; Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 156
24 (2007) (district court without jurisdiction to consider successive habeas
25 action when prisoner “neither sought nor received authorization from the
26 Court of Appeals before filing”).
27
28
1 10. “If the petition is second or successive, then the district court
2 lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss the petition unless and until the court
3 of appeals grants an application to file it.” Brown v. Muniz, 889 F.3d 661,
4 667, 676 (9th Cir. 2018) (“petitioner’s burden is higher” under statute to
5 bring successive habeas action); Prince v. Lizzaraga, 733 F. App’x 382, 384
6 (9th Cir. 2018) (prisoner “must first apply to this court for permission to
7 have his petition heard in the district court”).
8 * * *
9 11. Petitioner’s current habeas action is subject to summary
10 dismissal. The petition challenges the same murder conviction that was
11 the subject of his earlier habeas action in this Court. Petitioner presents
12 no proof that he asked for or received permission from the Ninth Circuit to
13 pursue another successive action. As a result, the current petition is
14 subject to summary dismissal. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); Brown, 889 F.3d at
15 667; Prince, 733 F. App’x at 384.
16 12. Because the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the
17 merits of Petitioner’s habeas claims, it declines to address the Attorney
18 General’s alternative contention that the current action is untimely under
19 AEDPA.2
20 * * *

21
22
23
24
25
2 Further, to the extent that Petitioner alleges either a new factual
26 basis (discovery of his earlier knife injuries) or legal theory (a brief reference to
the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1390
27 (2020) (Docket # 4 at 44)) for his current action, the first consideration of those
issues is in the Court of Appeals as part of the successive petition authorization
28 process under Section 2244.
i Petitioner’s current action is DISMISSED without prejudice as
2 | successive.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
6 | Datea: April 20, 2021 A fry KM, 44-—

HON. GEORGE WU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9 Presented by:
10
11 Lf [ ,
12
HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER
13 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10040718. Public record. Not legal advice.