1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRIAN HERNANDEZ, ) Case No. 5:23-cv-00635-DSF-JC 11 ) Petitioner, ) 12 ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY v. ) THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 ) HABEAS CORPUS AND ACTION JEFF MACOMBER, ) SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 14 ) Respondent. ) 15 ) 16 I. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY1 17 On October 13, 2021, Petitioner Brian Hernandez – who was then 18 represented by counsel – filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Prior Federal 19 Petition”) challenging his 2018 conviction and sentence in Riverside County 20 21 1The background and procedural history set forth herein are derived from the Petition for 22 Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Current Petition”) filed in the instant action (Docket No. 1), the docket and records filed in Petitioner’s prior federal habeas action 23 (Brian Hernandez v. Craig Koenig, United States District Court for the Central District of 24 California case no. 5:21-cv-01732-DSF-JC (“Prior Federal Action”)), and the dockets of the Riverside County Superior Court (available online at https://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov), the 25 California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court (available online at https:// appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov), and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 26 (“Ninth Circuit”) (https://pacer.uscourts.gov), of which the Court takes judicial notice. See Fed. 27 R. Evid. 201; Harris v. Cnty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2012) (court may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record including documents on file in federal or 28 state courts). 1 1 Superior Court Case No. INF1700442 (“State Criminal Case”) on multiple 2 grounds. On August 25, 2022, in the Prior Federal Action, Judgment was entered 3 denying the Prior Federal Petition and dismissing the Prior Federal Action with 4 prejudice. 5 On April 10, 2023, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed the Current Petition 6 in the instant action, again challenging his 2018 sentence in the State Criminal 7 Case. The Current Petition alleges Petitioner is entitled to resentencing due to a 8 change in the law affecting the length of his sentence. In particular, Petitioner 9 asserts that he received two upper-term sentences in violation of Cunningham v. 10 California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), and he seeks resentencing consistent with 11 Cunningham. He further requests day-for-day custody credits pursuant to 12 California Penal Code (“P.C.”) § 4019. Additionally, he contends his right to 13 counsel was denied, and he was denied due process of law when non-punitive 14 fines and fees were imposed. 15 For the reasons explained below, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW 16 CAUSE by not later than May 9, 2023 why the Current Petition and this action 17 should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because the 18 Current Petition is second or successive and Petitioner did not obtain the requisite 19 authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file it. 20 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 21 On April 9, 2018, a Riverside County Superior Court jury in the State 22 Criminal Case found Petitioner guilty of one count of second degree murder in 23 violation of P.C. § 187(a) (count 1) and one count of assault with a firearm in 24 violation of P.C. § 245(a)(2) (count 2), and also found it to be true that, as to 25 count 1, Petitioner personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and 26 proximately caused great bodily injury and death to another person within the 27 meaning of P.C. § 12022.53(d) and 1192.7(c)(8), and, as to count 2, Petitioner 28 personally used a firearm within the meaning of P.C. § 12022.5(a) and 2 1 1192.7(c)(8). On August 3, 2018, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to a total of 2 54 years to life in state prison.2 3 Petitioner appealed his convictions and sentence to the California Court of 4 Appeal, Fourth Appellate District (“Court of Appeal”) in Case No. E071053. The 5 Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on April 7, 2020. On April 24, 2020, the 6 Court of Appeal modified its opinion without altering the judgment. Petitioner 7 then filed a petition for review in California Supreme Court Case No. S262150, 8 which such court denied on July 15, 2020. 9 On January 14, 2020, petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in Court of 10 Appeal Case No. E074476, which such court denied on April 7, 2020. 11 As noted above, on October 13, 2021, Petitioner filed the Prior Federal 12 Petition in the Prior Federal Action, challenging the judgment in the State 13 Criminal Case. In the Prior Federal Petition, Petitioner alleged he was entitled to 14 federal habeas relief because: (1) the trial court violated his constitutional rights 15 by admitting his “un-Mirandized custodial statement”; (2) he was denied due 16 process of law when the trial court failed sua sponte to instruct the jury on the 17 lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter based on a heat of passion 18 theory; (3) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel and his due 19 process rights were violated when his attorney failed to object to improper 20 aggravating factors during sentencing; and (4) Petitioner was denied due process 21 of law when the trial court imposed fines and fees without holding a hearing as to 22 Petitioner’s ability to pay. 23 /// 24 25 2As to count 1, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to an indefinite term of 40 years to life, 26 consisting of 15 years to life for the second degree murder conviction and an additional 25 years 27 to life for the firearm enhancement. As to count 2, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to a consecutive 14-year term on count 2, consisting of the upper term of 4 years for the assault with a 28 firearm conviction and an additional 10-year upper term for the gun enhancement. 3 1 On December 20, 2021, in the Prior Federal Action, Petitioner filed a 2 Motion for Stay (“Stay Motion”), which conclusorily requested that the Court stay 3 proceedings to permit Petitioner “the opportunity to exhaust remedies due to [a] 4 change in [the] law.” The Stay Motion did not identify this change in the law, but 5 in a subsequent brief Petitioner indicated he wished to stay proceedings based on 6 California Senate Bill 567, which amended P.C. § 1170(b) to require a trial court, 7 “in its sound discretion,” for any offense with “three possible terms,” to “order 8 imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term” unless “there are 9 circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of 10 imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and the facts underlying those 11 circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant, or have been found true 12 beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.” P.C. 13 § 1170(b)(1-2) (2022). 14 On July 7, 2022, in the Prior Federal Action, the undersigned issued a 15 Report and Recommendation (“Prior R&R”) recommending that the Stay Motion 16 be denied, the Prior Federal Petition be denied its merits, and the Prior Federal 17 Action be dismissed with prejudice. On August 25, 2022, the District Judge 18 accepted the Prior R&R, denied the Stay Motion, denied the Prior Federal Petition 19 on its merits, dismissed the Prior Federal Action with prejudice, and denied 20 Petitioner a certificate of appealability. Judgment in the Prior Federal Action was 21 entered accordingly on the same date. Petitioner appealed to the Ninth Circuit, 22 where Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability remains pending in 23 Ninth Circuit Case No. 22-55845. 24 On January 28, 2022, while the Prior Federal Petition was pending, 25 Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the Riverside County Superior Court in 26 the State Criminal Case.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRIAN HERNANDEZ, ) Case No. 5:23-cv-00635-DSF-JC 11 ) Petitioner, ) 12 ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY v. ) THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 ) HABEAS CORPUS AND ACTION JEFF MACOMBER, ) SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 14 ) Respondent. ) 15 ) 16 I. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY1 17 On October 13, 2021, Petitioner Brian Hernandez – who was then 18 represented by counsel – filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Prior Federal 19 Petition”) challenging his 2018 conviction and sentence in Riverside County 20 21 1The background and procedural history set forth herein are derived from the Petition for 22 Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Current Petition”) filed in the instant action (Docket No. 1), the docket and records filed in Petitioner’s prior federal habeas action 23 (Brian Hernandez v. Craig Koenig, United States District Court for the Central District of 24 California case no. 5:21-cv-01732-DSF-JC (“Prior Federal Action”)), and the dockets of the Riverside County Superior Court (available online at https://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov), the 25 California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court (available online at https:// appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov), and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 26 (“Ninth Circuit”) (https://pacer.uscourts.gov), of which the Court takes judicial notice. See Fed. 27 R. Evid. 201; Harris v. Cnty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2012) (court may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record including documents on file in federal or 28 state courts). 1 1 Superior Court Case No. INF1700442 (“State Criminal Case”) on multiple 2 grounds. On August 25, 2022, in the Prior Federal Action, Judgment was entered 3 denying the Prior Federal Petition and dismissing the Prior Federal Action with 4 prejudice. 5 On April 10, 2023, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed the Current Petition 6 in the instant action, again challenging his 2018 sentence in the State Criminal 7 Case. The Current Petition alleges Petitioner is entitled to resentencing due to a 8 change in the law affecting the length of his sentence. In particular, Petitioner 9 asserts that he received two upper-term sentences in violation of Cunningham v. 10 California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), and he seeks resentencing consistent with 11 Cunningham. He further requests day-for-day custody credits pursuant to 12 California Penal Code (“P.C.”) § 4019. Additionally, he contends his right to 13 counsel was denied, and he was denied due process of law when non-punitive 14 fines and fees were imposed. 15 For the reasons explained below, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW 16 CAUSE by not later than May 9, 2023 why the Current Petition and this action 17 should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because the 18 Current Petition is second or successive and Petitioner did not obtain the requisite 19 authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file it. 20 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 21 On April 9, 2018, a Riverside County Superior Court jury in the State 22 Criminal Case found Petitioner guilty of one count of second degree murder in 23 violation of P.C. § 187(a) (count 1) and one count of assault with a firearm in 24 violation of P.C. § 245(a)(2) (count 2), and also found it to be true that, as to 25 count 1, Petitioner personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and 26 proximately caused great bodily injury and death to another person within the 27 meaning of P.C. § 12022.53(d) and 1192.7(c)(8), and, as to count 2, Petitioner 28 personally used a firearm within the meaning of P.C. § 12022.5(a) and 2 1 1192.7(c)(8). On August 3, 2018, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to a total of 2 54 years to life in state prison.2 3 Petitioner appealed his convictions and sentence to the California Court of 4 Appeal, Fourth Appellate District (“Court of Appeal”) in Case No. E071053. The 5 Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on April 7, 2020. On April 24, 2020, the 6 Court of Appeal modified its opinion without altering the judgment. Petitioner 7 then filed a petition for review in California Supreme Court Case No. S262150, 8 which such court denied on July 15, 2020. 9 On January 14, 2020, petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in Court of 10 Appeal Case No. E074476, which such court denied on April 7, 2020. 11 As noted above, on October 13, 2021, Petitioner filed the Prior Federal 12 Petition in the Prior Federal Action, challenging the judgment in the State 13 Criminal Case. In the Prior Federal Petition, Petitioner alleged he was entitled to 14 federal habeas relief because: (1) the trial court violated his constitutional rights 15 by admitting his “un-Mirandized custodial statement”; (2) he was denied due 16 process of law when the trial court failed sua sponte to instruct the jury on the 17 lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter based on a heat of passion 18 theory; (3) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel and his due 19 process rights were violated when his attorney failed to object to improper 20 aggravating factors during sentencing; and (4) Petitioner was denied due process 21 of law when the trial court imposed fines and fees without holding a hearing as to 22 Petitioner’s ability to pay. 23 /// 24 25 2As to count 1, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to an indefinite term of 40 years to life, 26 consisting of 15 years to life for the second degree murder conviction and an additional 25 years 27 to life for the firearm enhancement. As to count 2, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to a consecutive 14-year term on count 2, consisting of the upper term of 4 years for the assault with a 28 firearm conviction and an additional 10-year upper term for the gun enhancement. 3 1 On December 20, 2021, in the Prior Federal Action, Petitioner filed a 2 Motion for Stay (“Stay Motion”), which conclusorily requested that the Court stay 3 proceedings to permit Petitioner “the opportunity to exhaust remedies due to [a] 4 change in [the] law.” The Stay Motion did not identify this change in the law, but 5 in a subsequent brief Petitioner indicated he wished to stay proceedings based on 6 California Senate Bill 567, which amended P.C. § 1170(b) to require a trial court, 7 “in its sound discretion,” for any offense with “three possible terms,” to “order 8 imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term” unless “there are 9 circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of 10 imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and the facts underlying those 11 circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant, or have been found true 12 beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.” P.C. 13 § 1170(b)(1-2) (2022). 14 On July 7, 2022, in the Prior Federal Action, the undersigned issued a 15 Report and Recommendation (“Prior R&R”) recommending that the Stay Motion 16 be denied, the Prior Federal Petition be denied its merits, and the Prior Federal 17 Action be dismissed with prejudice. On August 25, 2022, the District Judge 18 accepted the Prior R&R, denied the Stay Motion, denied the Prior Federal Petition 19 on its merits, dismissed the Prior Federal Action with prejudice, and denied 20 Petitioner a certificate of appealability. Judgment in the Prior Federal Action was 21 entered accordingly on the same date. Petitioner appealed to the Ninth Circuit, 22 where Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability remains pending in 23 Ninth Circuit Case No. 22-55845. 24 On January 28, 2022, while the Prior Federal Petition was pending, 25 Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the Riverside County Superior Court in 26 the State Criminal Case. The Superior Court denied such petition on February 9, 27 2022, stating: 28 /// 4 1 The petitioner claims that the enactment of Senate Bill 567 grants him 2 new grounds for relief. Statutory amendments like those enacted in 3 S.B. 567 are not retroactive absent an express declaration of the 4 Legislature. “No part of the [Penal Code] is retroactive, unless 5 expressly so declared.” (Penal Code § 3) To the contrary, statutory 6 amendments such as those created by Senate Bill 567, in which the 7 Legislature did not expressly address retroactivity, apply only to those 8 cases not yet final when the law became effective. [People 9 v. Garcia, 28 Cal. App. 5th 961, 972-73 (2018)]. In the case of S.B. 10 567, that date was January 1, 2022. Petitioner’s case was final before 11 January 1, 2022. Thus, the new legislation is inapplicable to the 12 petitioner. As the petitioner has failed to state a prima facie case, 13 relief is unavailable. 14 On March 9, 2022, Petitioner filed a second habeas corpus petition in the 15 Riverside County Superior Court in the State Criminal Case, raising the same 16 claim as the prior habeas corpus petition filed in that court. On March 30, 2022, 17 the Superior Court denied such petition as successive and for the reasons set forth 18 in its February 9, 2022 Order. On July 27, 2022, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus 19 petition in Court of Appeal Case No. E079443, which such court denied on 20 October 27, 2022. 21 On November 10, 2022, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in 22 California Supreme Court Case No. S277277, which such court denied on 23 February 22, 2023. 24 III. DISCUSSION 25 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 26 District Courts allows a district court to dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears 27 from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to 28 relief in the district court. . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 5 1 || Cases. Here, based on the Current Petition and the aforementioned state and 2 || federal court records of which the Court has taken judicial notice, it appears that 3 || this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Current Petition because it is second or 4 || successive and Petitioner has not obtained the requisite authorization from the 5 || Ninth Circuit to file it. 6 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”’) 7 || “established a stringent set of procedures that a prisoner ‘in custody pursuant to 8 || the judgment of a State court’ must follow if he wishes to file a ‘second or 9 || successive’ habeas corpus application challenging that custody[.]” Burton v. 10 || Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007) (per curiam) (citations omitted). In particular, 11 | “[ijfan application is ‘second or successive,’ the petitioner must obtain leave from 12 | the court of appeals before filing it with the district court[,]” Magwood v. 13 || Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 330-31 (2010) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)); 14 || Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 641 (1998), and the appellate court 15 || “may authorize the filing of the second or successive application only if it presents 16 || aclaim not previously raised that satisfies one of the two [exceptions] articulated 17 || in § 2244(b)(2).” Burton, 549 U.S. at 153. “One of these exceptions is for claims 18 || predicated on newly discovered facts that call into question the accuracy of a 19 || guilty verdict. The other is for certain claims relying on new rules of 20 || constitutional law.” Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 661-62 (2001) (citations 21 || omitted); see also Magwood, 561 U.S. at 335 (Section 2244(b)(2) “describes 22 || circumstances when a claim not presented earlier may be considered: intervening 23 || and retroactive case law, or newly discovered facts suggesting ‘that... no 24 || reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying 25 || offense.’” (citation omitted)). “Even if a petitioner can demonstrate that he 26 || qualifies for one of these exceptions, he must seek authorization from the court of 27 || appeals before filing his new petition with the district court.” Woods v. Carey, 28 || 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 2008). “A petitioner’s failure to seek such
1 || authorization from the appropriate appellate court before filing a second or 2 || successive habeas petition acts as a jurisdictional bar.” Rishor v. Ferguson, 822 3 | F.3d 482, 490 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2213 (2017); Burton, 549 4] US. at 153. 5 Here, the District Judge denied the Prior Federal Petition challenging the 6 || judgment in the State Criminal Case on the merits and dismissed the Prior Federal 7 || Action with prejudice on August 25, 2022, and Petitioner’s appeal of this decision 8 || is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. Nevertheless, on April 10, 2023, 9 || Petitioner filed the Current Petition, which also challenges the judgment in the 10 || State Criminal Case. Under these circumstances, it appears the Current Petition is 11 || second or successive habeas petition, which the Court lacks jurisdiction to 12 || consider absent authorization from the Ninth Ciruit” Burton, 549 U.S. at 153; 13 || Balbuena v. Sullivan, 980 F.3d 619, 636-37 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. 14 Ct. 2755 (2021); Beaty v. Schriro, 554 F.3d 780, 782-83 & n.1 (9th Cir.), cert. 15 || denied, 558 U.S. 832 (2009). 16] 1V. ORDER 17 Petitioner is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by not later than 18 || May 9, 2023 why this action should not be dismissed as an unauthorized second 19 || or successive petition. Petitioner is advised that he has the right to submit 20 || declarations, affidavits, or any other relevant evidentiary materials with his 21 || response to this Order to Show Cause. All affidavits and declarations must be 22 || signed under penalty of perjury by persons having personal knowledge of the facts 23 || stated in the affidavits or declarations. 24 Instead of filing a response to the instant Order to Show Cause, Petitioner 25 || may request a voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 26
°A search of the court’s PACER system does not reflect that Petitioner has been granted 28 || leave to file a second or successive petition by the Ninth Circuit.
1 Procedure 41(a). If he elects to proceed in that manner, he may sign and return the 2 attached Notice of Dismissal. However, Petitioner is advised that any dismissed 3 claims may later be subject to dismissal with prejudice as time-barred under 4 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).4 5 Petitioner is cautioned that the failure timely to respond to this Order 6 to Show Cause and/or to show good cause may result in the dismissal of this 7 action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because the Current Petition 8 is second or successive and Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Ninth 9 Circuit has authorized it to be filed and/or the dismissal of this action with or 10 without prejudice based on Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Court’s 11 order, and/or Petitioner’s failure to prosecute. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 DATED: April 17, 2023 14 _____________/s/____________________ 15 Honorable Jacqueline Chooljian UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 Attachment 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 4This Order to Show Cause does not address whether the Current Petition itself is subject 28 to dismissal with prejudice as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 8