Bruce Allen v. The People of The State of California

C.D. California

Bruce Allen v. The People of The State of California

DecidedApril 28, 2021

Docket2:21-cv-02759

StatusUnknown

This text of Bruce Allen v. The People of The State of California (Bruce Allen v. The People of The State of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bruce Allen v. The People of The State of California, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRUCE ALLEN, Case No. CV 21-02759 AB (RAO)

12 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING SUCCESSIVE 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF JURISDICTION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 15 CALIFORNIA, APPEALABILITY 16 Respondent. 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 On March 22, 2021, Petitioner Bruce Allen constructively filed a Petition for 20 Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner seeks habeas relief from his current state custody arising 22 from his 1983 conviction and resulting sentence of life without the possibility of 23 parole in Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number LAA023609. Petition at 24 11 and Exh. C. 25 The records of this Court establish that Petitioner has filed two prior habeas 26 actions concerning his 1983 conviction and sentence. See Allen v. Kernan, No. CV 27 16-4803-AB (RAO) (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2016); Allen v. Kernan, No. CV 18-5848- 28 AB (RAO) (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2018). In the 2016 action, the Court denied on the 1 merits Petitioner’s claim that California Senate Bill 261, codified at California Penal 2 Code § 3051, unconstitutionally violates his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal 3 protection by excluding him from eligibility for a youth-offender parole hearing 4 based on his prison sentence of life without the possibility of parole. See October 5, 5 2016 Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 13 at 5-10, adopted by November 9, 6 2016 Order, Allen v. Kernan, No. CV 16-4803-AB (RAO), Dkt. No. 15.1 7 A review of the instant Petition demonstrates that Petitioner again seeks to 8 raise an equal protection claim that California Penal Code § 3051 unconstitutionally 9 excludes him from the state’s youthful-offender parole eligibility scheme. Petition 10 at 5, 9-13. Neither the Petition itself nor the records of the Ninth Circuit establish 11 that the Ninth Circuit has authorized Petitioner to bring a successive petition in this 12 Court. 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 The United States Supreme Court has explained: 15 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) established a stringent set of procedures that a 16 prisoner “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State 17 court,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), must follow if he wishes to file a “second or successive” habeas corpus application 18 challenging that custody, § 2244(b)(1). In pertinent part, 19 before filing the application in the district court, a prisoner “shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order 20 authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 21 § 2244(b)(3)(A). A three-judge panel of the court of appeals may authorize the filing of the second or successive 22 application only if it presents a claim not previously raised 23 that satisfies one of the two grounds articulated in § 2244(b)(2). § 2244(b)(3)(C); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 24 U.S. 524, 529-530, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 162 L. Ed. 2d 480 25

26 1 In the 2018 action, the Court denied as time-barred Petitioner’s challenge to the 1983 conviction and sentence. See July 17, 2018 Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 27 No. 7, adopted by August 29, 2018 Order, Allen v. Kernan, No. CV 18-5848-AB 28 (RAO), Dkt. No. 8. 1 (2005); see also Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-657, 664, 116 S. Ct. 2333, 135 L. Ed. 2d 827 (1996). 2 Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152-53, 127 S. Ct. 793, 166 L. Ed. 2d 628 (2007). 3 The Court finds that Petitioner’s present Petition is clearly a “second or 4 successive” habeas petition. Petitioner is not challenging a new or intervening 5 judgment, nor is he attempting to raise a claim or claims that could not have been 6 brought in an earlier petition; indeed, he raised the same claim in his 2016 action. 7 C.f. Clayton v. Biter, 868 F.3d 840, 843-45 (9th Cir. 2017); Hill v. State of Alaska, 8 297 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the Petition and records of the Ninth 9 Circuit establish that Petitioner has not been granted authorization by the Ninth 10 Circuit to file a successive petition to raise his claims. 11 For these reasons, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the 12 Petition. Therefore, the reference to the Magistrate Judge is vacated and the Petition 13 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Burton, 549 U.S. at 152-53. The Clerk is 14 directed to enter judgment dismissing the Petition. 15 III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 Under AEDPA, a state prisoner seeking to appeal a district court’s final order 17 in a habeas corpus proceeding must obtain a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) 18 from the district judge or a circuit judge. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA may 19 issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 20 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by 21 demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution 22 of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are 23 adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 24 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 154 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003). 25 When the Court dismisses a petition on procedural grounds, it must issue a 26 COA if the petitioner shows: (1) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable 27 whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right”; and 28 1 | (2) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 2 || correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478, 120 S. Ct. 3 || 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000). 4 Here, the Court is dismissing the Petition without prejudice because it is a 5 || successive petition without proper authorization from the Ninth Circuit. Since the 6 || Petition is patently a successive petition, Petitioner cannot make the requisite 7 || showing that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 8 || correct in its procedural ruling. 9 IV. OQRDER 10 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 11 1. The Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; and 12 2. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. 13 14 || DATED: April 28, 2021 (nd 15 ANDRE BIROTTE JR. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 || Presented by: 19 . 9) | Rapeen a. 91 || ROZELLA A. OLIVER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28

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 11 BRUCE ALLEN, Case No. CV 21-02759 AB (RAO)

12 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING SUCCESSIVE 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF JURISDICTION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 15 CALIFORNIA, APPEALABILITY 16 Respondent. 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 On March 22, 2021, Petitioner Bruce Allen constructively filed a Petition for 20 Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner seeks habeas relief from his current state custody arising 22 from his 1983 conviction and resulting sentence of life without the possibility of 23 parole in Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number LAA023609. Petition at 24 11 and Exh. C. 25 The records of this Court establish that Petitioner has filed two prior habeas 26 actions concerning his 1983 conviction and sentence. See Allen v. Kernan, No. CV 27 16-4803-AB (RAO) (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2016); Allen v. Kernan, No. CV 18-5848- 28 AB (RAO) (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2018). In the 2016 action, the Court denied on the 1 merits Petitioner’s claim that California Senate Bill 261, codified at California Penal 2 Code § 3051, unconstitutionally violates his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal 3 protection by excluding him from eligibility for a youth-offender parole hearing 4 based on his prison sentence of life without the possibility of parole. See October 5, 5 2016 Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 13 at 5-10, adopted by November 9, 6 2016 Order, Allen v. Kernan, No. CV 16-4803-AB (RAO), Dkt. No. 15.1 7 A review of the instant Petition demonstrates that Petitioner again seeks to 8 raise an equal protection claim that California Penal Code § 3051 unconstitutionally 9 excludes him from the state’s youthful-offender parole eligibility scheme. Petition 10 at 5, 9-13. Neither the Petition itself nor the records of the Ninth Circuit establish 11 that the Ninth Circuit has authorized Petitioner to bring a successive petition in this 12 Court. 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 The United States Supreme Court has explained: 15 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) established a stringent set of procedures that a 16 prisoner “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State 17 court,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), must follow if he wishes to file a “second or successive” habeas corpus application 18 challenging that custody, § 2244(b)(1). In pertinent part, 19 before filing the application in the district court, a prisoner “shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order 20 authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 21 § 2244(b)(3)(A). A three-judge panel of the court of appeals may authorize the filing of the second or successive 22 application only if it presents a claim not previously raised 23 that satisfies one of the two grounds articulated in § 2244(b)(2). § 2244(b)(3)(C); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 24 U.S. 524, 529-530, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 162 L. Ed. 2d 480 25

26 1 In the 2018 action, the Court denied as time-barred Petitioner’s challenge to the 1983 conviction and sentence. See July 17, 2018 Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 27 No. 7, adopted by August 29, 2018 Order, Allen v. Kernan, No. CV 18-5848-AB 28 (RAO), Dkt. No. 8. 1 (2005); see also Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-657, 664, 116 S. Ct. 2333, 135 L. Ed. 2d 827 (1996). 2 Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152-53, 127 S. Ct. 793, 166 L. Ed. 2d 628 (2007). 3 The Court finds that Petitioner’s present Petition is clearly a “second or 4 successive” habeas petition. Petitioner is not challenging a new or intervening 5 judgment, nor is he attempting to raise a claim or claims that could not have been 6 brought in an earlier petition; indeed, he raised the same claim in his 2016 action. 7 C.f. Clayton v. Biter, 868 F.3d 840, 843-45 (9th Cir. 2017); Hill v. State of Alaska, 8 297 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the Petition and records of the Ninth 9 Circuit establish that Petitioner has not been granted authorization by the Ninth 10 Circuit to file a successive petition to raise his claims. 11 For these reasons, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the 12 Petition. Therefore, the reference to the Magistrate Judge is vacated and the Petition 13 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Burton, 549 U.S. at 152-53. The Clerk is 14 directed to enter judgment dismissing the Petition. 15 III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 Under AEDPA, a state prisoner seeking to appeal a district court’s final order 17 in a habeas corpus proceeding must obtain a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) 18 from the district judge or a circuit judge. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA may 19 issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 20 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by 21 demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution 22 of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are 23 adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 24 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 154 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003). 25 When the Court dismisses a petition on procedural grounds, it must issue a 26 COA if the petitioner shows: (1) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable 27 whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right”; and 28 1 | (2) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 2 || correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478, 120 S. Ct. 3 || 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000). 4 Here, the Court is dismissing the Petition without prejudice because it is a 5 || successive petition without proper authorization from the Ninth Circuit. Since the 6 || Petition is patently a successive petition, Petitioner cannot make the requisite 7 || showing that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 8 || correct in its procedural ruling. 9 IV. OQRDER 10 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 11 1. The Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; and 12 2. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. 13 14 || DATED: April 28, 2021 (nd 15 ANDRE BIROTTE JR. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 || Presented by: 19 . 9) | Rapeen a. 91 || ROZELLA A. OLIVER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bruce Allen v. The People of The State of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruce-allen-v-the-people-of-the-state-of-california-cacd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack