(HC)Tash v. Hill, No. 1:2014cv01318 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Petitioner's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, and Petitioner's Motion Making Prima Facie Showing re 31 , 22 , 18 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/24/15. Referred to Judge Ishii. Thirty Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID LARON TASH, 12 Petitioner, 13 Case No. 1:14-cv-01318-AWI-GSA-HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND PETITIONER’S MOTION MAKING PRIMA FACIE SHOWING v. RON RACKLEY1, 14 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 17 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the instant petition, Petitioner challenges his 1999 conviction sustained in Fresno 19 20 County Superior Court for second degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, and two counts of 21 attempted murder. Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate state prison term of 15 years to 22 life plus a consecutive determinate state prison term of 35 years, 8 months. (LD2 1). On April 23 26, 2001, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District modified the sentence to award 24 Petitioner 32 additional days of presentence conduct and worktime credit and affirmed the 25 judgment as modified. (LD 2). The California Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition for 26 review without comment on July 11, 2001. (LD 4). Petitioner has filed 15 pro se habeas 27 28 1 Ron Rackley is the new Warden at Folsom State. Ron Rackley will be substituted as the Respondent in this matter pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2 “LD” refers to the documents lodged by Respondent on March 6, 2015. 1 1 petitions. (LDs 5-37). Petitioner previously filed a prior federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this district 2 3 with respect to this judgment. See Tash v. Adams, Case No. 1:02-CV-06233-WMW. In that 4 action, the court denied the habeas petition on the merits on January 30, 2006. The court denied 5 Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability. The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s 6 request for a certificate of appealability to appeal the January 30, 2006 denial by the district 7 court. Subsequently, Petitioner asked the Ninth Circuit for permission to file a second or 8 successive petition, but that request was denied on May 26, 2006. Petitioner filed the instant 9 petition on August 16, 2014. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, Petitioner filed an opposition 10 to the motion to dismiss, Respondent filed a reply, and Petitioner filed an opposition to the 11 reply.3 12 I. 13 DISCUSSION A. Procedural Grounds for Motion to Dismiss 14 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a 15 16 petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 17 entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The Ninth Circuit has allowed respondents to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer 18 19 if the motion attacks the pleadings for failing to exhaust state remedies or being in violation of 20 the state’s procedural rules. See, e.g., O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990) 21 (using Rule 4 to evaluate motion to dismiss petition for failure to exhaust state remedies); White 22 v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1989) (using Rule 4 as procedural grounds to review 23 motion to dismiss for state procedural default). Thus, a respondent can file a motion to dismiss 24 after the court orders a response, and the Court should use Rule 4 standards to review the motion. 25 See Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F. Supp. 1189, 1194, n. 12 (E.D. Cal. 1982). In this case, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is based on a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 26 27 28 3 Generally, a Petitioner is not entitled to file an opposition to a Respondent’s reply to the opposition to a motion to dismiss. However, in this case, the Court has reviewed Petitioner’s opposition to Respondent’s reply to the opposition to the motion to dismiss. 2 1 2244(b)’s proscription against successive petitions and 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)’s one-year 2 limitations period. Because Respondent’s motion to dismiss is similar in procedural standing to 3 a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state remedies or for state procedural default, and 4 Respondent has not yet filed a formal answer, the Court will review Respondent’s motion to 5 dismiss pursuant to its authority under Rule 4. 6 7 B. Successive Petition A federal court must dismiss a second or successive petition that raises the same grounds 8 as a prior petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). The court must also dismiss a second or successive 9 petition raising a new ground unless the petitioner can show that 1) the claim rests on a new, 10 retroactive, constitutional right or 2) the factual basis of the claim was not previously 11 discoverable through due diligence, and these new facts establish by clear and convincing 12 evidence that but for the constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the 13 applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B). However, it is not 14 the district court that decides whether a second or successive petition meets these requirements. 15 Section 2244(b)(3)(A) provides: “Before a second or successive application permitted by 16 this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of 17 appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” In other words, 18 Petitioner must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before he can file a second or successive 19 petition in district court. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-657 (1996). This Court must 20 dismiss any second or successive petition unless the Court of Appeals has given Petitioner leave 21 to file the petition because a district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a second or 22 successive petition. Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 23 117 S.Ct. 794 (1997). 24 Because the instant petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the 25 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) apply to it. Lindh v. Murphy, 26 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997). Petitioner makes no showing that he has obtained prior leave from the 27 Ninth Circuit to file his successive petition attacking his conviction. As previously stated, 28 Petitioner previously filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court on 3 1 challenging the same conviction. See Tash v. Adams, Case No. 1:02-CV-06233-WMW. The 2 petition was denied on the merits. Therefore, the instant petition challenging the same 3 conviction is successive. Even though Petitioner claims he is actually innocent, his petition is 4 still successive and he must receive authorization from the Ninth Circuit to bring the petition. As 5 Petitioner has not obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file this successive petition, this 6 Court has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed application for relief from that 7 conviction under Section 2254 and must dismiss the petition. See Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1277. 8 As Petitioner has not yet obtained the requisite order from the Ninth Circuit allowing the filing of 9 this second or successive petition, any argument about an equitable exception to the limitations 10 period is immaterial at this time. 11 12 C. Evidentiary Hearing Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 22). Based upon a review of the 13 record, the Court has determined that the instant petition is successive. Therefore, the petition 14 must be dismissed. An evidentiary hearing would serve no purpose in this matter, as it is clear 15 that the instant petition is a second or successive petition that the Petitioner has not obtained 16 prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file. Thus, Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing 17 must be denied. 18 19 D. Motion Making Prima Facie Showing by Expert Opinion On June 12, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion making prima facie showing by expert 20 opinion. (ECF No. 31). In the motion, Petitioner makes additional arguments in support of his 21 claim of actual innocence qualifying him for an equitable exception to the limitations period. As 22 previously discussed, the petition must be dismissed for being successive and any arguments 23 about actual innocence for an equitable exception to the limitations period are immaterial at this 24 time. Therefore, the motion must be denied. 25 II. 26 RECOMMENDATIONS 27 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 28 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED; 4 1 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as successive; 2 3. Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing be DENIED; and 3 4. Petitioner’s motion making prima facie showing by expert opinion be DENIED. 4 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 5 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 6 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 7 thirty (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written 8 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 9 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections 10 shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The assigned 11 District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 12 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 13 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 14 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 24, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
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.
