Darrell Haynes v. W. L. Muniz, No. 2:2016cv08400 - Document 11 (C.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (SUCCESSIVE PETITION) by Judge Dale S. Fischer. On August 31, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody ("Petition") in the Northern Dist rict of California. On November 9, 2016, the action was transferred to this district. Petitioner again challenges his 2009 conviction for murder and other crimes. The Court summarily dismisses the Petition because Petitioner previously challenged the same state court judgment in a habeas action that was dismissed with prejudice and lacks Ninth Circuit authorization to file a successive petition. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing the Petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (See Order for details.) (mp)

Download PDF

Darrell Haynes v. W. L. Muniz Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRELL HAYNES, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 15 16 17 18 v. W.L. MUNIZ, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. CV 16-8400-DSF (AGR) OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (SUCCESSIVE PETITION) On August 31, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”) in the Northern District of California. On 20 November 9, 2016, the action was transferred to this district. Petitioner again 21 challenges his 2009 conviction for murder and other crimes. The Court 22 summarily dismisses the Petition because Petitioner previously challenged the 23 same state court judgment in a habeas action that was dismissed with prejudice 24 and lacks Ninth Circuit authorization to file a successive petition. 25 I. 26 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 27 28 Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, the Court takes judicial notice of the records in Petitioner’s two prior federal habeas corpus actions in the Central District. Dockets.Justia.com Petitioner was convicted of murder and other crimes in 2009. (Petition at 1 2 3 1-2.) On December 9, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 4 that challenged the 2009 judgment. Haynes v. Lewis, CV No. 11-10197 GAF 5 (RZ) (“Haynes I”). On December 20, 2012, the Court accepted the Magistrate 6 Judge’s Report And Recommendation, denied the petition with prejudice, entered 7 judgment and denied a certificate of appealability. (Dkt. Nos. 27-29.) On April 8 10, 2013, the Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability because the notice 9 of appeal was not timely filed. (Dkt. No. 34.) 10 On January 16, 2015, Petitioner filed a second petition in this Court that 11 challenged the same 2009 judgment. Haynes v. Muniz, CV No. 15-358 DSF (RZ) 12 (“Haynes II”). On February 27, 2015, the Court summarily dismissed the petition 13 as successive and denied a certificate of appealability. (Dkt. Nos. 7-8.) 14 The current Petition challenges the same 2009 conviction. 15 II. 16 DISCUSSION 17 The Petition was filed after enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective 18 Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Therefore, the Court applies the AEDPA 19 in reviewing the Petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997). 20 The AEDPA provides, in pertinent part: “Before a second or successive 21 application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall 22 move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court 23 to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). A district court does not 24 have jurisdiction to consider a “second or successive” petition absent 25 authorization from the Ninth Circuit. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007); 26 Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (“When the AEDPA is in 27 play, the district court may not, in the absence of proper authorization from the 28 2 1 court of appeals, consider a second or successive habeas application.”) (citation 2 and quotation marks omitted). 3 Here, the Petition is a successive petition challenging the same conviction 4 and sentence imposed by the same judgment of the state court as in Haynes I 5 and Haynes II 6 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 7 Courts provides that “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any 8 attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the 9 judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Here, 10 summary dismissal is warranted. 11 III. 12 ORDER 13 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing the Petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 15 16 17 11/21/16 DATED: ______________________ DALE S. FISCHER United States District Judge 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.