Patel v. Ground, No. 2:2012cv00028 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 1/17/12 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Patel v. Ground Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAREN HASMUKHBHAI PATEL, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. CIV S-12-0028-MCE-CMK-P vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RANDY GROUND, 15 Respondent. 16 / 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s petition 19 (Doc. 1). 20 Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary 21 dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any 22 exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the 23 instant case, it is plain that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief at this time because 24 the current petition is second or successive of a prior petition decided on the merits. 25 /// 26 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), “[a] claim presented in a second or successive 2 habeas corpus application . . . that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.” 3 Under § 2244(b)(2), “[a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application . . . 4 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. . . .” unless one of two 5 circumstances exist. Either the newly raised claim must rely on a new rule of constitutional law, 6 or the factual predicate of the new claim could not have been discovered earlier through the 7 exercise of due diligence and the new claim, if proven, establishes actual innocence. See id. 8 Before a second or successive petition potentially permissible under § 2244(b)(2) can be filed, 9 the petitioner must first obtain leave of the Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). In the 10 absence of proper authorization from the Court of Appeals, the district court lacks jurisdiction to 11 consider a second or successive petition and must dismiss it. See Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 12 1270 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). 13 In this case, petitioner’s petition is second or successive of a prior petition, Patel 14 v. Swarthout, CIV-S-09-2923-MCE-CMK, which was adjudicated on February 1, 2011. 15 Petitioner claimed that his trial was unfair because: (1) he was not allowed to present evidence of 16 the victim’s parole/custody status; and (2) he was limited in his ability to present evidence of the 17 victim’s prior bad acts. That petition was denied because petitioner procedurally defaulted both 18 claims in state court and, therefore, the claims were barred on federal habeas review. In the 19 current petition, petitioner claims ineffective assistance of counsel. Applying the principles 20 above, the court concludes that the instant petition must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. 21 § 2244(b)(2) because, while the ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not previously 22 adjudicated on the merits, petitioner has not obtained prior approval from the Ninth Circuit Court 23 of Appeals to present this claim in a new habeas petition. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 2 1 2 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 4 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 7 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 8 See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 10 11 12 DATED: January 17, 2012 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
