Damon Edward Swanigan v. Warden Salinas Valley State Prison, No. 2:2018cv01854 - Document 6 (C.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Judge R. Gary Klausner. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing the Petition and action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (See attachment for details) (hr)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DAMON EDWARD SWANIGAN, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Salinas Valley State Prison, Respondent. 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. CV 18-1854-RGK (AGR) OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS On March 6, 2018, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a 19 Person in State Custody (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner 20 challenges his 1998 conviction and sentence in Los Angeles County Superior 21 Court. (Petition at 2.) 22 I. 23 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 24 25 26 27 28 Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, the Court takes judicial notice of the records in Petitioner’s several prior federal habeas corpus actions in this district: 1 Swanigan v. Pliler, CV 01-2485 RSWL (SGL) (“Swanigan I”)1; Swanigan v. Pliler, 2 CV 02-2355 RSWL (SGL) (“Swanigan II”);2 Swanigan v. Pliler, CV 02-6784 ABC 3 (SGL) (“Swanigan III”), Swanigan v. Small, CV 08-4954-RSWL (AGR) (“Swanigan 4 IV”), and Swanigan v. Biter, CV 14-7055-RGK (AGR) (“Swanigan V”). On August 29, 2002, in Swanigan III, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of 5 6 habeas corpus by a person in state custody. Id., Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner 7 challenged his 1998 conviction for two counts of robbery with enhancements. 8 (Id., Dkt. No. 10 at 1.) On November 20, 2002, the Court entered Judgment denying the petition 9 10 in Swanigan III and dismissing the action with prejudice as barred by the one- 11 year statute of limitations. Id., Dkt. Nos. 10-11. On December 19, 2002, 12 Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. Id., Dkt. No. 12. On July 30, 2003, the Ninth 13 Circuit denied Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability. Id., Dkt. No. 14 21. 15 On August 6, 2008, in Swanigan IV, the Court summarily dismissed the 16 petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it was a second or 17 successive petition. (Id., Dkt. No. 3.) Petitioner did not appeal. 18 On September 18, 2014, in Swanigan V, the Court again summarily 19 dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it was a 20 second or successive petition. (Id., Dkt. No. 3.) On November 4, 2014, the Court 21 denied Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. (Id., Dkt. No. 7.) Petitioner did not 22 appeal. 23 24 The Court takes judicial notice of Ninth Circuit public records indicating that, on August 18, 2016 in case number 16-71167, the Court of Appeals denied 25 26 27 28 1 On April 6, 2001, the Court dismissed Swanigan I without prejudice pursuant to Swanigan’s motion for voluntary dismissal so he could exhaust his grounds for relief. 2 On May 31, 2002, the Court dismissed Swanigan II without prejudice. 2 1 Petitioner’s application for authorization to file a second or successive habeas 2 corpus petition. 3 The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on March 6, 2018 in this Court 4 contains enumerates the following claims and arguments: (1) Petitioner is 5 “actually innocent” of the “Third Strike” sentence imposed in 1998; (2) in “prior 6 writ proceedings, the [state] court ignored a subject matter jurisdiction” in violation 7 of Petitioner’s federal due process rights; (3) the trial court failed to follow state 8 procedural law in imposing Petitioner’s “Third Strike” sentence; (4) Petitioner 9 received ineffective assistance of counsel at the portion of his trial devoted to the 10 existence of his prior “strikes”; and (5) Petitioner has exhausted his claims in the 11 state courts. (Petition at 5-6.) 12 In a Memorandum of Law filed with the Petition, Petitioner contends that 13 his actual innocence exempts him from the one-year statute of limitations under 14 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii). (Dkt. No. 4 at 2, 7-8.) 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, 117 S. Ct. 2059, 20 138 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1997). 21 The AEDPA provides, in pertinent part: “Before a second or successive 22 application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall 23 move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court 24 to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). A district court does not 25 have jurisdiction to consider a “second or successive” petition absent 26 authorization from the Ninth Circuit. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007); 27 Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (“When the AEDPA is in 28 play, the district court may not, in the absence of proper authorization from the 3 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 that challenges the same custody 4 imposed by the same judgment of the state court as in Swanigan III. (Petition at 5 2.) As noted above, Petitioner has not received authorization from the Ninth 6 Circuit Court of Appeals to file the Petition. This Court must, therefore, dismiss 7 the Petition as a second or successive petition for which it lacks jurisdiction under 8 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). See Burton, 549 U.S. at 153-56. 9 Petitioner’s reference to his actual innocence does not alter the analysis. 10 See Williams v. Thaler, 602 F.3d 291, 304-05 (5th Cir. 2010) (because petitioner 11 failed to obtain Court of Appeals’ authorization for leave to file successive 12 petition, “district court did not have jurisdiction to consider [petitioner]’s claim of 13 actual innocence”). 14 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 15 Courts provides that “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any 16 attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the 17 judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Here, 18 summary dismissal is warranted. 19 III. 20 ORDER 21 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing the Petition and action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 23 24 DATED: March 12, 2018 25 26 R. GARY KLAUSNER United States District Judge 27 28 4

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.