Clayton v. Biter, No. 15-71566 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit denied petitioner's application for permission to file a second or successive petition as unnecessary and transferred the matter to the district court with instructions to treat petitioner's habeas petition as a first petition. The panel held that the current habeas petition did not attempt to challenge petitioner's underlying conviction. Rather, petitioner sought only to challenge a new and intervening judgment denying him relief with respect to his sentence. The panel also held that cognizability plays no role in the panel's adjudication of such an application, and that it was the province of the district court to consider cognizability of a habeas petition.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel denied as unnecessary California state prisoner Curtis Clayton’s application for permission to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition challenging the state court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under section 1170.126 of the California Penal Code, and transferred the matter to the district court with instructions to treat Clayton’s habeas petition as a first petition. The panel explained that under California law, a resentencing petition under section 1170.126 does not challenge the underlying conviction or sentence; rather it seeks to obtain the benefits of Proposition 36, which entitles defendants with a non-serious and non-violent third strike to petition for resentencing, and results in the entry of a new or appealable order of judgment. The panel held that Clayton, accordingly, is not subject to the “second or successive” petition bar imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), and may seek habeas relief from the denial of his resentencing position. The panel also held that cognizability of a claim in the habeas petition plays no role in the court of appeals’ adjudication of an application for permission to file a second or successive petition, and that it is the province of the district court to consider cognizability of a habeas petition. CLAYTON V. BITER 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.