Eddie Earl Haskin v. Stu Shermen

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 22, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-03811
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 EDDIE EARL HASKIN, ) Case No. 2:20-cv-03811-JAK (JDE) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 13 v. ) ) DISMISSAL 14 STU SHERMAN, Warden, ) ) ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16 ) 17 18 On April 27, 2020, the Court received a Petition for Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Dkt. 1, “Petition” or “Pet.”) from Eddie 20 Earl Haskin (“Petitioner”), a California state prisoner proceeding pro se. The 21 case was reassigned to the current judicial officers on July 21, 2020. Dkt. 9. 22 The Petition is missing page two from the court’s form habeas petition, 23 where the state criminal case number underlying the judgment being 24 challenged would normally be provided. However, Petitioner attached 25 portions from the transcripts from the trial court for the proceedings underlying 26 the conviction being challenged that reflect the underlying criminal case 27 number is BA391618, a prosecution for domestic violence in Los Angeles 28 Superior Court. See Dkt. 1 at 17 (CM/ECF pagination). Petitioner checked a 1 box indicated he had not “previously filed any habeas petitions in any federal 2 court” regarding the judgment of conviction. Pet. at 5 (CM/ECF pagination). 3 On October 19, 2016, Eddie Earl Haskin filed a Petition for Writ of 4 Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody in this Court in Case No. 2:16-cv- 5 07767-JAK-JDE (“Prior Action”). The petition in the Prior Action challenged 6 a domestic violence conviction in underlying case number BA391618 from the 7 Los Angeles Superior Court. Prior Action, Dkt. 1 (“Prior Petition”) at 2. 8 Following briefing, the Court accepted and adopted a Report and 9 Recommendation recommending denial of the Prior Petition, entered an order 10 denying the Prior Petition on the merits and dismissing the Prior Action with 11 prejudice, and thereafter entered judgment in accordance therewith. See Prior 12 Action, Dkt. 35, 36. 13 Based on a review of the Petition, as well as information derived from 14 the docket of the Prior Action, it appears that the Petition herein constitutes a 15 second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), as Petitioner 16 previously sought habeas relief from the same judgment of conviction. 17 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (the 18 “AEDPA”) applies to the instant action because Petitioner filed it after the 19 AEDPA’s effective date of April 24, 1996. See Campbell v. Henry, 614 F.3d 20 1056, 1058 (9th Cir. 2010). The AEDPA “greatly restricts the power of federal 21 courts to award relief to state prisoners who file second or successive habeas 22 corpus applications.” Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 661 (2001). Title 28, United 23 States Code, Section 2244(b) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 24 (1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas 25 corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior 26 application shall be dismissed. 27 (2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas 28 corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a 1 prior application shall be dismissed unless – 2 (A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new 3 rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on 4 collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously 5 unavailable; or 6 (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have 7 been discovered previously through the exercise of due 8 diligence; and 9 (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and 10 viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be 11 sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, 12 but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would 13 have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 14 (3)(A) Before a second or successive application permitted 15 by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move 16 in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the 17 district court to consider the application. 18 A petitioner’s failure to obtain authorization from the appropriate 19 appellate court before filing a second or successive habeas petition deprives the 20 district court of jurisdiction to consider the petition. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 21 U.S. 147, 157 (2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) 22 (per curiam). 23 Here, as noted, it appears Petitioner previously challenged the same 24 judgment of conviction in the Prior Action. Thus, the Petition now pending 25 appears to constitute a second and/or successive petition and as such, 26 Petitioner must obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit before this Court can 27 adjudicate the issues raised by the Petition. Nothing in the record demonstrates 28 that Petitioner has obtained the requisite authorization from the Ninth Circuit. 1 || Therefore, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the 2 || Petition. 3 kok 4 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that, within 21 days from the date of 5 ||this Order, Petitioner show cause in writing why the Court should not dismiss 6 || this action for lack of jurisdiction because Petitioner failed to secure an order 7 ||from the Ninth Circuit authorizing the District Court to consider the Petition 8 || prior to filing it in this Court. 9 Petitioner is warned that his failure to timely respond to this Order 10 ||may result in the Petition being dismissed for the reasons stated above and 11 || for failure to prosecute and comply with a court order. 12 13 || Dated: July 22, 2020 i 7 14 : 15 J D. EARLY 16 nited States Magistrate Judge

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28