(HC) Terrell v. McDonald, No. 2:2012cv01988 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/3/2012, ORDERING that petitioner's 2 application to proceed IFP is GRANTED; and the clerk to assign a district judge to this action; and RECOMMENDING that this 1 petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Assigned and Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 14 days.(Yin, K)

Download PDF

(HC) Terrell v. McDonald Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EDWARD TERRELL, 11 12 13 14 Petitioner, vs. MIKE McDONALD, Warden, ORDER AND Respondent. 15 16 No. 2:12-cv-1988 CKD P FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of 17 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma 18 pauperis. Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to 19 afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be 20 granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 21 Petitioner challenges his February 13, 2003 conviction for second degree robbery 22 with two prior strikes, for which he was sentenced to a state prison term of 25 years to life. 23 (Dkt. No. 1 at 1.) The court has examined its records, and finds that petitioner challenged this 24 same conviction in an earlier action, Terrell v. McDonald, No. 2:11-cv-2095 KJM EFB P (E.D. 25 Cal.) (“Terrell II”). In that case, the court determined that the petition was successive, as 26 petitioner had challenged his February 2003 conviction in yet an earlier action, Terrell v. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Woodford, No. 2:07-cv-0784 MJP (E.D. Cal.) (“Terrell I”), in which the petition was denied on 2 the merits on March 17, 2009. Terrell II, Dkt. No. 6 at 2; Terrell I, Dkt. No. 33. As a result, the 3 court in Terrell II dismissed the petition as successive. Id., Dkt. No. 7. 4 That makes the instant case Terrell III, and the instant petition is also successive. 5 A petition is second or successive if it makes “claims contesting the same custody imposed by 6 the same judgment of a state court” that the petitioner previously challenged, and on which the 7 federal court issued a decision on the merits. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007); see 8 also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-486 (2000). Before filing a second or successive 9 petition in district court, a petitioner must obtain from the appellate court “an order authorizing 10 the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Without an order from 11 the appellate court, the district court is without jurisdiction to consider a second or successive 12 petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. at 152, 157. As in Terrell II, petitioner offers no evidence that the 13 appellate court has authorized this court to consider a second or successive petition challenging 14 his February 2003 conviction. Thus this action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 16 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and 17 2. The Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this action. 18 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this petition be dismissed for lack of 19 20 jurisdiction. If petitioner files objections, he shall also address if a certificate of appealability 21 should issue and, if so, as to which issues. A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 22 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 23 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The certificate of appealability must “indicate 24 which specific issue or issues satisfy” the requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). 25 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 2 1 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 2 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 3 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections 4 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 5 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 Dated: August 3, 2012 7 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 2 terr1988.successive 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.