Camaray Carter v. Teri Gonzalez, No. 2:2012cv05184 - Document 5 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal; IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is DENIED as successive; and (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action without prejudice. See order for details. (jy)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 CAMARAY CARTER, ) NO. CV 12-05184 SS ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ) ELVIN VALENZUELA, Acting Warden, ) ) Respondent. ) _________________________________) 16 17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION1 19 20 On June 14, 2012, Camaray Carter ( Petitioner ), a California State 21 prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 22 by a Person in State Custody (the Petition ) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 23 2254. 24 required by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 25 to Rule 4, the Court must summarily dismiss the Petition because it The Court has conducted a preliminary review of the Petition, as Pursuant 26 27 1 Elvin Valenzuela, Acting Warden of the California Men s Colony, 28 where Petitioner is currently incarcerated, is substituted as the proper Respondent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed 2 to it that [Petitioner] is not entitled to relief. 3 Governing Section 2254 Cases; see also O Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 4 420 (9th Cir. 1990) ( [R]ule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 in 5 the United States District Courts explicitly allows a district court to 6 dismiss summarily the petition on the merits when no claim for relief 7 is stated. (internal quotation marks omitted)). R. 4 of the Rules 8 9 In the Petition, Petitioner challenges his 1999 conviction and 10 sentence. (Petition at 2). 11 federal habeas petition (Case No. CV 08-05973 PSG (SS)) (the Prior 12 Petition ), which also challenged his 1999 conviction and sentence.2 13 On October 23, 2009, the District Judge denied the Prior Petition as 14 untimely and dismissed the action with prejudice. 15 the judgment and on July 18, 2011, the U.S. Court of appeals for the 16 Ninth 17 appealability. 18 Cause Why This Action Should Not Be Dismissed As Successive (the Order 19 to Show Cause ). 20 Order to Show Cause by July 3, 2012 if he wished to contest the 21 dismissal of this action. 22 to file a response. Circuit denied However, Petitioner previously filed a Petitioner s request for Petitioner appealed a certificate of On June 19, 2012, the Court issued an Order To Show Petitioner was required to file a response to the As of today, however, Petitioner has failed 23 24 25 2 The Court takes judicial notice of Petitioner s prior proceedings 26 before this Court. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria 27 Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) ( [W]e may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and 28 without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue. (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2 1 Petitioner, who is the only party to this action, has consented to 2 the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge 3 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).3 (See Docket No. 3). For the reasons 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Upon the consent of the parties, a magistrate judge may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Here, Petitioner is the only party to the instant proceeding and has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. Respondent has not yet been served with the Petition and therefore is not a party to this proceeding. See, e.g., Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Brenneke, 551 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009) ( A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. (internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, all parties have consented pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). See, e.g, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1119-21 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction to dismiss prison inmate s action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where prisoner consented and was only party to the action); United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction to enter default judgment in an in rem forfeiture action even though property owner had not consented to it because 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) only requires the consent of the parties and the property owner, having failed to comply with the applicable filing requirements, was not a party ); Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) ( The record does not contain a consent from the defendants. However, because they had not been served, they were not parties to this action at the time the magistrate entered judgment. Therefore, lack of written consent from the defendants did not deprive the magistrate judge of jurisdiction in this matter. ); see also Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Doe, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125671, at *4 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2011) ( Here, Plaintiff has consented to magistrate jurisdiction and the Doe Defendants have not yet been served. Therefore, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to decide the issues raised in the instant motion(s). ); Third World Media, LLC v. Doe, 2011 WL 4344160, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2011) ( The court does not require the consent of the defendants to dismiss an action when the defendants have not been served and therefore are not parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ); Kukiela v. LMA Prof l Recovery Group, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85417, at *1 n.1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 1, 2011) ( Plaintiff consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge for all proceedings in this case, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c)(1). (Doc. 7.) Because Defendant did not appear and establish its standing as a party in this action, the Magistrate Judge has jurisdiction to enter the requested default judgment. ); Quigley v. Geithner, 2010 WL 3613901, at *1 (D. Idaho Sept. 3 1 discussed below, it is recommended that the Petition be DENIED as 2 successive and that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. 3 4 II. 5 PRIOR PROCEEDINGS 6 7 On July 28, 1999, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury 8 convicted Petitioner of criminal conspiracy in violation of California 9 Penal Code ( Penal Code ) section 182(a), attempted murder in violation 10 of Penal Code sections 664 and 187, and robbery in violation of Penal 11 Code section 211. (Petition at 2). On August 18, 1999, the trial court 12 imposed an indeterminate term of thirty-five years to life in state 13 prison. 14 Recommendation ( R&R ) at 2). (Carter v. Uribe, Case No. CV 08-05973 PSG (SS)), Report and 15 16 On September 28, 2000, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the 17 trial court s judgment. (R&R at 2). 18 petition for review in the California Supreme Court, which was denied 19 on January 10, 2001. 20 petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, 21 which was denied on June 11, 2008. (Id.). Petitioner subsequently filed a Several years later, Petitioner filed a (Id.). 22 23 24 25 8, 2010) ( Plaintiff, the only party appearing in this case, has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge to 26 enter final orders in this case. ); Ornelas v. De Frantz, 2000 WL 27 973684, at *2 n.2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2000) ( The court does not require the consent of defendants in order to dismiss this action because 28 defendants have not been served, and, as a result, are not parties under the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ). 4 1 On September 12, 2008, Petitioner filed the Prior Petition before 2 this Court. 3 challenging his 1999 conviction and sentence. 4 District Judge denied the Prior Petition as untimely and dismissed the 5 action with prejudice. Petitioner appealed the judgment and on July 18, 6 2011, 7 Petitioner s request for a certificate of appealability. 8 filed the instant Petition on June 14, 2012. the In the Prior Petition, Petitioner raised three claims U.S. Court of Appeals for the On October 23, 2009, the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner 9 10 III. 11 PETITIONER S CLAIM 12 13 Petitioner s sole claim for federal habeas relief is that the 14 California Supreme Court erroneously applied 15 (untimeliness) to his state habeas petition. a procedural bar (Petition at 5). 16 17 IV. 18 DISCUSSION 19 20 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 21 ( AEDPA ), which effected amendments to the federal habeas statutes, 22 applies to the instant Petition because Petitioner filed it after 23 AEDPA s effective date of April 24, 1996. 24 320, 336, 117 S. Ct. 2059, 138 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1997). 25 recognized that the AEDPA generally prohibits successive petitions: Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. Courts have 26 27 AEDPA greatly restricts the power of federal courts to 28 award relief to state prisoners who file second or successive 5 1 habeas corpus applications. 2 that he has already presented in a previous federal habeas 3 petition, the claim must be dismissed in all cases. 4 the prisoner asserts a claim that was not presented in a 5 previous petition, the claim must be dismissed unless it 6 falls within one of two narrow exceptions. 7 exceptions is for claims predicated on newly discovered facts 8 that call into question the accuracy of a guilty verdict. 9 The other is for certain claims relying on new rules of 10 If the prisoner asserts a claim And if One of these constitutional law. 11 12 Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 661, 121 S. Ct. 2478, 150 L. Ed. 2d 632 13 (2001) (citations omitted); see also Pizzuto v. Blades, 673 F.3d 1003, 14 1007 (9th Cir. 2012). 15 16 Here, the instant Petition is successive because it challenges the 17 same 1999 conviction and sentence that Petitioner challenged in the 18 Prior Petition. 19 S. Ct. 793, 166 L. Ed. 2d 628 (2007) (holding that a petition was 20 successive because it challenged the same custody imposed by the same 21 judgment of a state court as a prior petition). 22 obtain permission from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 23 before the instant Petition can proceed. 24 ( Before a second or successive application permitted by this section 25 is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the 26 appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court 27 to consider the application. ); see also Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 28 888 (9th Cir. 2008) ( Even if a petitioner can demonstrate that he See, e.g., Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153, 127 6 Thus, Petitioner must See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) 1 qualifies for one of these exceptions, he must seek authorization from 2 the court of appeals before filing his new petition with the district 3 court. ). 4 5 The Court s review of the docket does not demonstrate that 6 Petitioner has either requested or received permission from the Ninth 7 Circuit to file a successive petition. 8 Petition 9 Petitioner obtains the necessary permission.4 must be dismissed without Accordingly, the instant prejudice to refiling after See Burton, 549 U.S. at 10 153 ( In short, [the petitioner] twice brought claims contesting the 11 same custody imposed by the same judgment of a state court. 12 result, under AEDPA, he was required to receive authorization from the 13 Court of Appeals before filing his second challenge. Because he did not 14 do so, the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain it. ). 15 The Court expressly advised Petitioner that the Petition was successive 16 and provided him an opportunity to respond. 17 file a response to the Order to Show Cause by July 3, 2012 if he wished 18 to contest the dismissal of this action. 19 Petitioner has failed to file a response.5 20 \\ As a Petitioner was required to As of today, however, 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 4 Even if the instant Petition were not successive, Petitioner s sole claim for relief would fail because the Ninth Circuit has held that errors in the state habeas review process are not cognizable on federal habeas review. See Cooper v. Neven, 641 F.3d 322, 331-32 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir. 1989)); Franzen, 877 F.2d at 26 ( [A] petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings. ). 5 Because Petitioner failed to file a response to the Order to Show Cause, this action is also subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute 28 and obey Court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 7 1 V. 2 CONCLUSION 3 4 IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is DENIED as successive; and 5 (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action without prejudice. 6 7 8 DATED: July 9, 2012. /S/ ______________________________ SUZANNE H. SEGAL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8
]]>
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.
