(HC) Thomas Charles Schuster v. Ken Clark, No. 1:2009cv00555 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED as Successive, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/12/2009. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 12/16/2009. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF

(HC) Thomas Charles Schuster v. Ken Clark Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 THOMAS SCHUSTER, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) ) v. ) ) ) KEN CLARK, Warden ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) 1:09-cv-00555 AWI YNP (DLB) (HC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BE DISMISSED AS A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE PETITION. 15 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 Petitioner filed the instant petition with the United States District Court for the Central 19 District of California on March 13, 2009, claiming “denial of due process and liberty interest in 20 parole.” (Pet. at 5). The case was transferred to this Court on March 26, 2009. (Doc. #4). 21 Petitioner had previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court, case number 1:07-cv- 22 00903-AWI-JMD, which is still pending. (Pet. at 8). 23 24 DISCUSSION A federal court must dismiss a second or successive petition that raises the same grounds as a 25 prior petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). The court must also dismiss a second or successive petition 26 raising a new ground unless the petitioner can show that 1) the claim rests on a new, retroactive, 27 constitutional right or 2) the factual basis of the claim was not previously discoverable through due 28 diligence, and these new facts establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for the U .S. D istrict Court E . D . California 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 constitutional error, no reasonable finder of fact would have found the applicant guilty of the 2 underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B). However, it is not the district court that decides 3 whether a second or successive petition meets these requirements, which allow a petitioner to file a 4 second or successive petition. 5 Section 2244 (b)(3)(A) provides: "Before a second or successive application permitted by this 6 section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an 7 order authorizing the district court to consider the application." In other words, Petitioner must 8 obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before he can file a second or successive petition in district court. 9 See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-657 (1996). This Court must dismiss any second or 10 successive petition unless the Court of Appeals has given Petitioner leave to file the petition because a 11 district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a second or successive petition. Pratt v. United 12 States, 129 F.3d 54, 57 (1st Cir. 1997); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997), 13 cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 794 (1997); Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). 14 Because the current petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the Antiterrorism 15 and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) apply to Petitioner's current petition. Lindh v. 16 Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997). Petitioner makes no showing that he has obtained prior leave 17 from the Ninth Circuit to file his successive petition attacking the conviction. That being so, this 18 Court has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed application for relief from that conviction 19 under Section 2254 and must dismiss the petition. See Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1277; Nunez, 96 20 F.3d at 991. If Petitioner desires to proceed in bringing this petition for writ of habeas corpus, he 21 must file for leave to do so with the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3). 22 23 24 25 RECOMMENDATION Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as successive. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United 26 States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 27 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 28 Within thirty (30) days (plus three days for mailing) after being served with a copy, any party may file U .S. D istrict Court E . D . California 2 1 written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 2 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The Court will then 3 review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised 4 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 5 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a November 12, 2009 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U .S. D istrict Court E . D . California 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.