Darrell Eugene Haynes v. Josie Gastelo, No. 2:2018cv07065 - Document 4 (C.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (SUCCESSIVE PETITION) by Judge Dale S. Fischer. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing the Petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (see document for details) (hr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Darrell Eugene Haynes v. Josie Gastelo Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRELL EUGENE HAYNES, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 15 16 17 18 v. JOSIE GASTELO, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. CV 18-7065-DSF (AGR) OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (SUCCESSIVE PETITION) On August 15, 2018, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”). Petitioner again challenges his 2009 20 conviction for murder and other crimes. The Court summarily dismisses the 21 Petition because Petitioner previously challenged the same state court judgment 22 in a habeas action that was dismissed with prejudice and lacks Ninth Circuit 23 authorization to file a successive petition. 24 I. 25 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 26 27 28 Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, the Court takes judicial notice of the records in Petitioner’s three prior federal habeas corpus actions in the Central District. Petitioner was convicted of murder and other crimes in 2009. (Petition at Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 1-2.) On December 9, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 3 that challenged the 2009 judgment. Haynes v. Lewis, CV No. 11-10197 GAF 4 (RZ) (“Haynes I”). On December 20, 2012, the Court accepted the Magistrate 5 Judge’s Report And Recommendation, denied the petition with prejudice, entered 6 judgment and denied a certificate of appealability. (Dkt. Nos. 27-29.) On April 7 10, 2013, the Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability because the notice 8 of appeal was not timely filed. (Dkt. No. 34.) 9 On January 16, 2015, Petitioner filed a second petition in this Court that 10 challenged the same 2009 judgment. Haynes v. Muniz, CV No. 15-358 DSF (RZ) 11 (“Haynes II”). On February 27, 2015, the Court summarily dismissed the petition 12 as successive and denied a certificate of appealability. (Dkt. Nos. 7-8.) 13 On August 31, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 14 by a Person in State Custody in the Northern District of California. On November 15 9, 2016, the action was transferred to this district. Haynes v. Muniz, CV 16-8400 16 DSF (AGR) (“Haynes III”). On November 21, 2016, the Court summarily 17 dismissed the petition as successive and denied a certificate of appealability. 18 (Dkt. Nos. 11-13.) 19 20 On August 15, 2018, Petitioner filed the current Petition and challenges the same 2009 conviction and sentence.1 (Petition at 2.) 21 II. 22 DISCUSSION 23 The Petition was filed after enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective 24 25 26 27 28 1 In an attachment, Petitioner appears to argue for the first time that his counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a continuance for a hearing to determine whether Petitioner was competent to plead guilty. (Petition, Dkt. No. 1 at 12.) Petitioner did not plead guilty in the underlying criminal case. Petitioner was found guilty of murder during the course of a robbery and grand theft by a jury. Petitioner testified in his own defense at trial. (Haynes I, Report at 1, 8-9, Dkt. No. 21.) 2 1 Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Therefore, the Court applies the AEDPA 2 in reviewing the Petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997). 3 The AEDPA provides, in pertinent part: “Before a second or successive 4 application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall 5 move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court 6 to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). A district court does not 7 have jurisdiction to consider a “second or successive” petition absent 8 authorization from the Ninth Circuit. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007); 9 Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (“When the AEDPA is in 10 play, the district court may not, in the absence of proper authorization from the 11 court of appeals, consider a second or successive habeas application.”) (citation 12 and quotation marks omitted). 13 Here, the Petition is a successive petition challenging the same conviction 14 and sentence imposed by the same judgment of the state court as in Haynes I, 15 Haynes II and Haynes III. A review of the Ninth Circuit’s online database 16 indicates that Petitioner has not requested, and has not received, leave to file a 17 second or successive petition from the Ninth Circuit. 18 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 19 Courts provides that “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any 20 attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the 21 judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Here, 22 summary dismissal is warranted. 23 III. 24 ORDER 25 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing 26 the Petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This dismissal is without 27 prejudice to Petitioner’s ability to seek authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court 28 of Appeals on Ninth Circuit Form 12 with the proposed petition. (Ninth Circuit 3 1 Rule 22-3.) 2 3 4 5 9/7/18 DATED: ______________________ DALE S. FISCHER United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
