James Compton v. Stu Sherman, No. 2:2014cv07397 - Document 4 (C.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Judge Gary A. Feess re: MOTION for Appointment of Counsel 2 . On September 22, 2014, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing the Petition and action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED. (See Order for details.) (mp)

Download PDF

James Compton v. Stu Sherman Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES COMPTON, 12 Petitioner, NO. CV 14-7397-GAF (AGR) 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 On September 22, 2014, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 13 14 15 v. STU SHERMAN, Warden, Respondent. 16 OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 19 Corpus by a Person in State Custody ( Petition ) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 20 Petitioner challenges his conviction in Los Angeles County Superior Court on July 21 1, 1999. (Petition at 2.) 22 I. 23 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 24 Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, the Court takes judicial notice of the records 25 in Petitioner s prior federal habeas corpus action in the Central District of 26 California, Compton v. Warden, Case No. CV 02-9655-GAF (RC) ( Compton I ). 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 On July 1, 1999, Petitioner was convicted of two counts of attempted, 2 premeditated murder and two accounts of assault with a firearm. (Petition at 2). 3 On August 16, 1999, he was sentenced to two life sentences. (Id.) 4 In Compton I, Petitioner challenged the same conviction. Dkt. No. 25 at 1- 5 2. A Report issued on the merits on October 21, 2003. The Report 6 recommended that the petition be denied and the action dismissed with prejudice. 7 Id. at 16. On November 20, 2003, the Court adopted the Report and entered 8 judgment dismissing the petition with prejudice. Id., Dkt. Nos. 26-27. On 9 December 23, 2003, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. Id., Dkt. No. 28. On 10 March 15, 2004, the Ninth Circuit denied the request for a certificate of 11 appealability. Id., Dkt. No. 33. 12 II. 13 DISCUSSION 14 The Petition was filed after enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective 15 Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( AEDPA ). Therefore, the Court applies the AEDPA 16 in reviewing the Petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336, 117 S. Ct. 2059, 17 138 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1997). 18 The AEDPA provides, in pertinent part: Before a second or successive 19 application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall 20 move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court 21 to consider the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). A district court does not 22 have jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition absent 23 authorization from the Ninth Circuit. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152, 127 S. 24 Ct. 793, 166 L. Ed. 2d 628 (2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th 25 Cir. 2001) ( When the AEDPA is in play, the district court may not, in the absence 26 of proper authorization from the court of appeals, consider a second or 27 successive habeas application. ) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 28 2 1 Here, the Petition is a second or successive petition challenging the same 2 conviction and sentence imposed by the same judgment of the state court as in 3 Compton I. 4 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 5 Courts provides that [i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any 6 attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the 7 judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner. Here, 8 summary dismissal is warranted. 9 III. 10 ORDER 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing 12 the Petition and action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. All pending motions 13 are DENIED. 14 15 DATED: September 28, 2014 GARY A. FEESS United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.