(HC) Palominos v. Barnes, No. 1:2014cv00759 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS To Dismiss Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus As Second And Successive, ORDER Directing That Objections Be Filed Within 21 Days, ORDER Directing Clerk Of The Court To Assign District Judge To Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/22/2014. This case is assinged to U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill and U.S. Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. The new case number is: 1:14-cv-00759-LJO-JLT(HC). F&R's referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 6/17/2014.(Fahrney, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ANTONIO P. PALOMINOS, v. ROY E. BARNES, Warden, Defendant. 16 17 18 19 Case No.: 1:14-cv-00759-JLT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS SECOND AND SUCCESSIVE ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE FILED WITHIN 21 DAYS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 20 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 21 The instant petition was filed on May 14, 2014 in the Northern District of California and 22 transferred to this Court on May 20, 2014. (Docs. 1, 3, & 4). In the course of conducting a 23 preliminary screening of the petition, it has come to the Court’s attention that Petitioner has previously 24 filed at least two prior federal habeas petitions challenging this same conviction. 25 A review of the Court’s own docket reflects that Petitioner has previously filed a federal 26 petition in this Court in case no. 1:09-cv-01682-AWI-BAM (“09-01682”), challenging the same 27 conviction that is challenged in the instant petition, i.e., Petitioner’s 2007 conviction in the Madera 28 County Superior Court for five counts of second degree murder and gross vehicular manslaughter 1 1 while intoxicated and his subsequent sentence of seventy-nine-year-to-life, in case no. MCR025574. 2 In that case, Petitioner raised the following issues: (1) sufficiency of the evidence of implied malice; 3 and (2) improper hypothetical question posed to expert. The Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 4 Recommendations on January 27, 2012 to deny the petition on its merits. (Doc. 25 to case no. 09- 5 01682). The District Judge adopted the Findings and Recommendations and entered judgment on 6 April 24, 2012. (Doc. 33 to case no. 09-01682). Thereafter, Petitioner appealed his case to the Ninth 7 Circuit, which, on June 27, 2012, denied Petitioner’s request for issuance of a certificate of 8 appealability. (Doc. 39 to case no. 09-01682). 9 Subsequently, Petitioner filed another federal habeas corpus petition in this Court in case no. 10 1:13-cv-01796-AWI-JLT, challenging the identical conviction. In that case, Petitioner raised grounds 11 of an illegal sentence, ineffective assistance of trial counsel. (Doc. 1 to case no. 1:13-cv-01796-AWI- 12 JLT, pp. 3-4). On November 13, 2013, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to dismiss 13 the petition as successive (Doc. 10), and on April 4, 2014, the District Judge adopted the Magistrate 14 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, entered judgment, and dismissed the case. (Docs. 16 & 17 to 15 case no 1:13-cv-01796-AWI-JLT.). 16 The instant petition, as with the petition immediately preceding it, raises issues of ineffective 17 assistance of trial counsel and an illegal sentence. Indeed, it appears that the instant petition is 18 virtually identical to the one filed in case no. 1:13-cv-01796-AWI-JLT. DISCUSSION 19 20 A federal court must dismiss a second or successive petition that raises the same grounds as a 21 prior petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). The Court must also dismiss a second or successive petition 22 raising a new ground unless the petitioner can show that 1) the claim rests on a new, retroactive, 23 constitutional right or 2) the factual basis of the claim was not previously discoverable through due 24 diligence, and these new facts establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for the constitutional 25 error, no reasonable fact-finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 26 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B). 27 28 However, it is not the district court that decides whether a second or successive petition meets these requirements that allow a petitioner to file a second or successive petition, but rather the Ninth 2 1 Circuit. Section 2244 (b)(3)(A) provides: "Before a second or successive application permitted by this 2 section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an 3 order authorizing the district court to consider the application." In other words, Petitioner must obtain 4 leave from the Ninth Circuit before he can file a second or successive petition in district court. See 5 Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-657 (1996). This Court must dismiss any second or successive 6 petition unless the Court of Appeals has given Petitioner leave to file the petition because a district 7 court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a second or successive petition. Pratt v. United States, 129 8 F.3d 54, 57 (1st Cir. 1997); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 9 117 S.Ct. 794 (1997); Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). 10 Because the current petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the Antiterrorism 11 and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) apply to Petitioner's current petition. Lindh v. 12 Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997). Petitioner makes no showing that he has obtained prior leave from 13 the Ninth Circuit to file this successive petition attacking his conviction. That being so, this Court has 14 no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed application for relief from that conviction under § 2254 15 and must dismiss the petition. See Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1277; Nunez, 96 F.3d at 991. If Petitioner 16 desires to proceed in bringing this petition for writ of habeas corpus, he must first file for leave to do so 17 with the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3). 18 The Court further notes that, in both case no. 1:13-cv-01796-AWI-JLT and the instant case, 19 Petitioner indicated on the form petition that he had not filed any other proceeding in any court 20 regarding this conviction apart from his direct appeal. Petitioner has signed both petitions under 21 penalty of perjury despite that his statements are not truthful. 22 Moreover, Petitioner apparently believes that he can simply continue to serially file petitions in 23 this Court challenging the same convictions and raising the same issues and that, eventually, he will be 24 heard; Petitioner is mistaken. This Court conducts a rigorous review, via computers and databases, of 25 each new petition that is filed in order to determine if the petition is successive. If Petitioner continues 26 to file successive petitions in this Court, this Court will continue to issue dismissals for the simple 27 reasons that, as discussed above, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear a successive petition. If 28 Petitioner wishes to pursue these claims, he must first get permission from the Ninth Circuit. 3 1 ORDER 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign a United States 3 District judge to this case. 4 RECOMMENDATION 5 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be 6 7 DISMISSED as a second and successive petition. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 8 assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 9 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within twenty 10 (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, any party may file 11 written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 12 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the Objections shall be 13 served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the 14 Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 15 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 16 right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 22, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
