(HC) Moreland v. Alfaro, No. 2:2016cv02689 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/29/16 ORDERING that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Randomly assigned and referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Moreland v. Alfaro Doc. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RALPH D. MORELAND, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:16-cv-2689 AC P v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SANDRA ALFARO, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 17 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. I. 19 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 20 Petitioner has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the required filing fee 21 ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). However, the court will not assess a filing fee at this 22 time. Instead, the undersigned will recommend summary dismissal of the petition. II. 23 Petition In the instant petition, petitioner challenges his 1996 convictions for first degree murder 24 25 and second degree robbery. ECF No. 1 at 1. He was sentenced to two life sentences without the 26 possibility of parole. Id. He alleges that he is actually innocent and that there was insufficient 27 evidence to support the convictions. Id. at 5-9. 28 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), a second or successive application for habeas relief 2 may not be filed in district court without prior authorization by the court of appeals. Felker v. 3 Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996). Prior authorization is a jurisdictional requisite. Burton v. 4 Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152-53 (2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) 5 (once district court has recognized a petition as second or successive pursuant to § 2244(b), it 6 lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits). A petition is successive within the meaning of 28 7 U.S.C. § 2244(b) where it “seeks to add a new ground for relief” or “if it attacks the federal 8 court’s previous resolution of a claim on the merits.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 9 (2005) (emphasis in original). “[A] ‘claim’ as used in § 2244(b) is an asserted federal basis for 10 relief from a state court’s judgment of conviction.” Id. at 530. “A habeas petition is second or 11 successive only if it raises claims that were or could have been adjudicated on the merits.” 12 McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 13 888 (9th Cir. 2008)). 14 The petition indicates (ECF No. 1 at 4, 12), and the court’s records confirm, that petitioner 15 has previously filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus attacking the conviction and 16 sentence challenged in this case. The previous application was filed by the Clerk of the Court on 17 January 6, 2015, and was denied as second or successive on February 29, 2016. Moreland v. 18 Arnold (“Moreland II”), No. 2:15-cv-00286 KJM AC (E.D. Cal.), ECF Nos. 1, 25, 27. This court 19 takes judicial notice of the record in that proceeding. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 20 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[A] court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases.”). 21 In denying the previous petition as second or successive, the court found that petitioner 22 had previously challenged his conviction and sentence in Moreland v. Lamarque (“Moreland I”), 23 No. C 01-1470 MJJ (N.D. Cal.). Moreland II., ECF No. 25 at 4-5. Review of Moreland I shows 24 that the petition in that case challenged the same conviction and was denied as untimely on 25 November 28, 2002. Moreland v. Lamarque, No. C 01-1470 MJJ, 2002 WL 31898209, at *1, 3- 26 4, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24814, at *2, 8-13 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2002). The Ninth Circuit has 27 held “that the dismissal of a habeas petition as untimely constitutes a disposition on the merits 28 and that a further petition challenging the same conviction would be ‘second or successive’ for 2 1 purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).” McNabb, 576 F.3d at 1029. 2 The court in Moreland II further found that records indicated that the Ninth Circuit had 3 denied petitioner’s request for leave to file a second or successive petition in 2007, Moreland v. 4 Hedgpeth, No. 07-72456 (9th Cir.), and that there was no indication that he had sought further 5 leave to file a second or successive petition.1 Moreland II, ECF No. 25 at 4. The petition was 6 denied without prejudice and petitioner was explicitly advised that this court could not consider 7 his federal habeas petition unless and until he first received permission from the Ninth Circuit 8 Court of Appeals to file a second or successive petition. Id. at 5. In the instant petition, petitioner 9 states that his request for leave to file a second or successive petition was denied by the Ninth 10 Circuit. ECF No. 1 at 12; Moreland v. Santoro, No. 16-70380 (9th Cir.), ECF No. 2 (denying 11 leave to file second or successive petition). 12 Before petitioner can proceed on his claims, he must submit a request to the United States 13 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to issue an order authorizing the district court to consider 14 the application and that request must be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Petitioner has not 15 provided any evidence that he has received the required authorization. The undersigned will 16 therefore recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice to re-filing once petitioner 17 receives authorization to proceed from the Ninth Circuit. 18 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. 20 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 21 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 22 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 23 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 24 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 25 1 26 27 28 The court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (collecting cases); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned). 3 1 Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 2 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 3 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 DATED: November 29, 2016 5 6 7 8 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.
