Ramundie O Brown v. Brian Duffy, No. 2:2021cv01423 - Document 4 (C.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Judge John A. Kronstadt. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing the Petition and action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (see document for further details) (hr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ramundie O Brown v. Brian Duffy Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAMUNDIE O BROWN, NO. CV 21-1423-JAK (AGR) 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 Because Petitioner previously challenged the same underlying state 12 Petitioner, 13 v. 14 15 BRIAN DUFFY, Warden, Respondent. 16 OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 19 criminal conviction in a prior habeas action that the Court dismissed with 20 prejudice, and because Petitioner lacks Ninth Circuit authorization to file a second 21 or successive habeas petition, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Petition for 22 Writ of Habeas Corpus. 23 I. 24 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 25 Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, the Court takes judicial notice of the records 26 in Petitioner’s prior federal habeas corpus action in the Central District of 27 California in Brown v. Duffy, Case No. CV 14-1750-JAK (JCG) (C.D. Cal.) 28 (“Brown I”). Dockets.Justia.com 1 On March 10, 2014, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by 2 a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in Brown I and 3 challenged his state conviction for attempted murder and assault with a deadly 4 weapon. The Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommended that 5 judgment be entered denying the petition and dismissing the action with 6 prejudice. (Brown I, Dkt. No. 18.) On August 10, 2015, the Court entered an 7 order accepting the Report, entered judgment denying the Petition and dismissing 8 the action with prejudice, and also denied a Certificate of Appealability. (Id., Dkt. 9 Nos. 21-22.) 10 Petitioner has now filed a second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a 11 Person in State Custody (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Perry v. Duffy, 12 Case No. CV 21-1423 JAK (AGR) (“Brown II”).1 (Dkt. No. 1.)2 Petitioner again 13 challenges the same state court conviction that he previously challenged in 14 Brown I. The Petition raises a single ground for relief, which corresponds to 15 Ground Four in the petition filed in Brown I. (Compare Brown II, Dkt. No. 1 at 5-7 16 with Brown i, Dkt. No. 1 at 6, Dkt. No. 1-1 at 8-9.) 17 II. 18 DISCUSSION 19 The Petition was filed after enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective 20 Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Therefore, the Court applies the AEDPA 21 in reviewing the Petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997). 22 23 “Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals 24 25 26 27 1 Page citations are to the page numbers assigned by CM/ECF in the header of the document. 2 The Court received and filed the Petition on February 10, 2021. The postmark indicates it was mailed on February 8, 2021. However, Petitioner has dated the Petition on December 2, 2019. (Dkt. No. 1 at 10.) 28 2 1 for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 2244(b)(3)(A). A district court does not have jurisdiction to consider a “second or 3 successive” petition absent authorization from the Ninth Circuit. Burton v. 4 Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007). 5 The current Petition is second or successive because Petitioner again 6 challenges the same state court conviction and sentence that he previously 7 challenged in Brown I. A petition is second or successive “if the facts underlying 8 the claim occurred by the time of the initial petition” and “if the petition challenges 9 the same state court judgment as the initial petition.” Brown v. Muniz, 889 F.3d 10 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied Brown v. Hatton, 139 S. Ct. 841 (2019); see 11 also Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 332 (2010). Thus, the underlying 12 Petition is second or successive. 13 The Petition does not state that Petitioner requested or received 14 authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive petition. A 15 review of the Ninth Circuit’s online database indicates Petitioner did not request 16 or receive authorization to file a second or successive petition. See Cooper v. 17 Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (“When the AEDPA is in play, the 18 district court may not, in the absence of proper authorization from the court of 19 appeals, consider a second or successive habeas application.”) (citation and 20 quotation marks omitted). 21 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 22 Courts provides that “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any 23 attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the 24 judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” The 25 Court therefore dismisses the Petition as a second or successive Petition for 26 which it lacks jurisdiction. 27 28 3 1 III. 2 ORDER 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily 4 dismissing the Petition and action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 5 6 7 8 )HEUXDU\ DATED: ______________________ JOHN A. KRONSTADT United States District Judge 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.
