1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ERIC W. SUGGS, ) Case No. 5:25-cv-02199-GW-JC 11 ) Petitioner, ) 12 ) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR v. ) WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND 13 ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE ) 14 MALANIE BRUNS, ) ) 15 ) Respondent. ) 16 ___________________________ ) 17 I. SUMMARY 18 On August 15, 2025, petitioner Eric W. Suggs, a California prisoner who is 19 proceeding pro se, formally filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of 20 Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Current Federal Petition”). The 21 Current Federal Petition challenges petitioner’s conviction and the judgment in 22 Riverside County Superior Court Case No. SWF1500568 (“State Case”) on 23 multiple grounds. 24 Based on the record (including facts as to which this Court takes judicial 25 notice as detailed below) and the applicable law, the Current Federal Petition and 26 this action are dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because 27 petitioner did not obtain the requisite authorization from the Court of Appeals to 28 file a successive petition. 1 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY1 2 A. The State Case and Related State Court Proceedings 3 On June 25, 2015, a Riverside County Superior Court jury in the State Case 4 found petitioner guilty of false imprisonment (Cal. Penal Code § 236), forcible oral 5 copulation (Cal. Penal Code § 288a(c)(2)(A)), forcible rape (Cal. Penal Code § 6 261(a)(2)), and criminal threats (Cal. Penal Code § 422). The jury also found true 7 enhancement allegations that petitioner personally used a dangerous weapon 8 (knife) in the commission of the forcible oral copulation and forcible rape (Cal. 9 Penal Code §§ 12022, 12022.3, and 12022.5). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial 10 court found true allegations that petitioner suffered two prior felony convictions 11 and served two prior prison terms (Cal. Penal Code § 667.5(b)). On July 16, 2015, 12 the trial court sentenced petitioner to 30 years to life in state prison. 13 Petitioner appealed to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate 14 District, Division Two (“California Court of Appeal”), which ordered the prior 15 prison enhancements stricken, but otherwise affirmed the judgment on 16 December 8, 2016 in Case No. E064058. Petitioner then filed a petition for review 17 in the California Supreme Court, which denied the petition on February 17, 2017 in 18 Case No. S239341. 19 Petitioner thereafter sought and was denied habeas relief in the Riverside 20 County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the California 21 Supreme Court. 22 23 1The procedural history set forth in this section is derived from the Current Federal Petition and the public docket and court records in Eric W. Suggs v. M.E. Spearman, C.D. Cal. 24 Case No. 5:17-cv-00570-GW-ADS (formerly GJS) (“First Federal Action”), Eric W. Suggs v. M. Eliot Spearman, Ninth Circuit Case No. 18-55964 (“First Ninth Circuit Action”), Eric Suggs 25 v. Matthew Atchley, Ninth Circuit Case No. 21-71244 (“Second Ninth Circuit Action”), Eric W. 26 Suggs v. Trent Allen, Case No. 01610 (“Third Ninth Circuit Action”), and the multiple California state court cases referenced herein, the latter of which are accessible via 27 https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Harris v. County of Orange, 682 28 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 state courts). 2 1 B. First Federal Action and First Ninth Circuit Action 2 On March 24, 2017, petitioner formally filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. 3 § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“First Federal 4 Petition”) in the First Federal Action, challenging the judgment in the State Case 5 on multiple grounds. 6 On June 26, 2018, this Court accepted the assigned United States 7 Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation recommending denial of the First 8 Federal Petition on the merits and dismissal of the First Federal Action with 9 prejudice. Judgment was entered accordingly on June 27, 2018. 10 On July 13, 2018, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal, initiating the First 11 Ninth Circuit Action. On February 26, 2019, the Ninth Circuit denied petitioner’s 12 request for a certificate of appealability. 13 C. Second Ninth Circuit Action 14 On August 23, 2021, petitioner filed an Application for Leave to File Second 15 or Successive Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Second Ninth Circuit Action. 16 On October 18, 2021, the Ninth Circuit denied such application. 17 D. Third Ninth Circuit Action 18 On September 28, 2022, petitioner filed another Application for Leave to 19 File Second or Successive Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Second Ninth 20 Circuit Action. On December 12, 2022, the Ninth Circuit denied such application. 21 E. Current Federal Petition 22 As noted above, on August 15, 2025, petitioner formally filed the Current 23 Federal Petition which again challenges the judgment in the State Case. The 24 record does not reflect that petitioner has obtained authorization from the Ninth 25 Circuit to file the Current Federal Petition with this Court.2 26 27 28 2A search of the court’s PACER system does not reflect that petitioner has been granted leave to file a second or successive petition by the Ninth Circuit. 3 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 Before a habeas petitioner may file a second or successive petition in a 3 district court, he must apply to the appropriate court of appeals for an order 4 authorizing the district court to consider the application. Burton v. Stewart, 549 5 U.S. 147, 152-53 (2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)). This provision 6 “creates a ‘gatekeeping’ mechanism for the consideration of second or successive 7 applications in district court.” Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996); see also 8 Reyes v. Vaughn, 276 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1028-30 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (discussing 9 applicable procedures in the Ninth Circuit). A district court lacks jurisdiction to 10 consider the merits of a second or successive habeas petition in the absence of 11 proper authorization from a court of appeals. Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 12 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (citing United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 664 13 (9th Cir. 1998)), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 984 (2003); see also Hooper v. Shinn, 56 14 F.4th 627 (9th Cir. 2022) (discussing standards governing second or successive 15 habeas petitions). 16 The Court of Appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive 17 petition only if it determines that the petition makes a prima facie showing that at 18 least one claim within the petition satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 19
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 ERIC W. SUGGS, ) Case No. 5:25-cv-02199-GW-JC 11 ) Petitioner, ) 12 ) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR v. ) WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND 13 ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE ) 14 MALANIE BRUNS, ) ) 15 ) Respondent. ) 16 ___________________________ ) 17 I. SUMMARY 18 On August 15, 2025, petitioner Eric W. Suggs, a California prisoner who is 19 proceeding pro se, formally filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of 20 Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Current Federal Petition”). The 21 Current Federal Petition challenges petitioner’s conviction and the judgment in 22 Riverside County Superior Court Case No. SWF1500568 (“State Case”) on 23 multiple grounds. 24 Based on the record (including facts as to which this Court takes judicial 25 notice as detailed below) and the applicable law, the Current Federal Petition and 26 this action are dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because 27 petitioner did not obtain the requisite authorization from the Court of Appeals to 28 file a successive petition. 1 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY1 2 A. The State Case and Related State Court Proceedings 3 On June 25, 2015, a Riverside County Superior Court jury in the State Case 4 found petitioner guilty of false imprisonment (Cal. Penal Code § 236), forcible oral 5 copulation (Cal. Penal Code § 288a(c)(2)(A)), forcible rape (Cal. Penal Code § 6 261(a)(2)), and criminal threats (Cal. Penal Code § 422). The jury also found true 7 enhancement allegations that petitioner personally used a dangerous weapon 8 (knife) in the commission of the forcible oral copulation and forcible rape (Cal. 9 Penal Code §§ 12022, 12022.3, and 12022.5). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial 10 court found true allegations that petitioner suffered two prior felony convictions 11 and served two prior prison terms (Cal. Penal Code § 667.5(b)). On July 16, 2015, 12 the trial court sentenced petitioner to 30 years to life in state prison. 13 Petitioner appealed to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate 14 District, Division Two (“California Court of Appeal”), which ordered the prior 15 prison enhancements stricken, but otherwise affirmed the judgment on 16 December 8, 2016 in Case No. E064058. Petitioner then filed a petition for review 17 in the California Supreme Court, which denied the petition on February 17, 2017 in 18 Case No. S239341. 19 Petitioner thereafter sought and was denied habeas relief in the Riverside 20 County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the California 21 Supreme Court. 22 23 1The procedural history set forth in this section is derived from the Current Federal Petition and the public docket and court records in Eric W. Suggs v. M.E. Spearman, C.D. Cal. 24 Case No. 5:17-cv-00570-GW-ADS (formerly GJS) (“First Federal Action”), Eric W. Suggs v. M. Eliot Spearman, Ninth Circuit Case No. 18-55964 (“First Ninth Circuit Action”), Eric Suggs 25 v. Matthew Atchley, Ninth Circuit Case No. 21-71244 (“Second Ninth Circuit Action”), Eric W. 26 Suggs v. Trent Allen, Case No. 01610 (“Third Ninth Circuit Action”), and the multiple California state court cases referenced herein, the latter of which are accessible via 27 https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Harris v. County of Orange, 682 28 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 state courts). 2 1 B. First Federal Action and First Ninth Circuit Action 2 On March 24, 2017, petitioner formally filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. 3 § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“First Federal 4 Petition”) in the First Federal Action, challenging the judgment in the State Case 5 on multiple grounds. 6 On June 26, 2018, this Court accepted the assigned United States 7 Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation recommending denial of the First 8 Federal Petition on the merits and dismissal of the First Federal Action with 9 prejudice. Judgment was entered accordingly on June 27, 2018. 10 On July 13, 2018, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal, initiating the First 11 Ninth Circuit Action. On February 26, 2019, the Ninth Circuit denied petitioner’s 12 request for a certificate of appealability. 13 C. Second Ninth Circuit Action 14 On August 23, 2021, petitioner filed an Application for Leave to File Second 15 or Successive Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Second Ninth Circuit Action. 16 On October 18, 2021, the Ninth Circuit denied such application. 17 D. Third Ninth Circuit Action 18 On September 28, 2022, petitioner filed another Application for Leave to 19 File Second or Successive Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Second Ninth 20 Circuit Action. On December 12, 2022, the Ninth Circuit denied such application. 21 E. Current Federal Petition 22 As noted above, on August 15, 2025, petitioner formally filed the Current 23 Federal Petition which again challenges the judgment in the State Case. The 24 record does not reflect that petitioner has obtained authorization from the Ninth 25 Circuit to file the Current Federal Petition with this Court.2 26 27 28 2A search of the court’s PACER system does not reflect that petitioner has been granted leave to file a second or successive petition by the Ninth Circuit. 3 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 Before a habeas petitioner may file a second or successive petition in a 3 district court, he must apply to the appropriate court of appeals for an order 4 authorizing the district court to consider the application. Burton v. Stewart, 549 5 U.S. 147, 152-53 (2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)). This provision 6 “creates a ‘gatekeeping’ mechanism for the consideration of second or successive 7 applications in district court.” Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996); see also 8 Reyes v. Vaughn, 276 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1028-30 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (discussing 9 applicable procedures in the Ninth Circuit). A district court lacks jurisdiction to 10 consider the merits of a second or successive habeas petition in the absence of 11 proper authorization from a court of appeals. Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 12 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (citing United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 664 13 (9th Cir. 1998)), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 984 (2003); see also Hooper v. Shinn, 56 14 F.4th 627 (9th Cir. 2022) (discussing standards governing second or successive 15 habeas petitions). 16 The Court of Appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive 17 petition only if it determines that the petition makes a prima facie showing that at 18 least one claim within the petition satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 19 2244(b), i.e., that a claim which was not presented in a prior application (1) relies 20 on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review 21 by the Supreme Court; or (2) the factual predicate for the claim could not have 22 been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence and the facts 23 underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish that, but for constitutional 24 errors, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the 25 underlying offense. Nevius v. McDaniel, 104 F.3d 1120, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 1997); 26 Nevius v. McDaniel, 218 F.3d 940, 945 (9th Cir. 2000). 27 A second or subsequent habeas petition is not considered “successive” if the 28 initial habeas petition was dismissed for a technical or procedural reason, rather 4 1 || than on the merits. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-487 (2000) (second 2 || habeas petition not “successive” if initial habeas petition dismissed for failure to 3 || exhaust state remedies); Stewart v. Martinez- Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 643-645 4 || (1998) (second habeas petition not “successive” if claim raised in first habeas 5 || petition dismissed as premature); but see McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 6 || (9th Cir. 2009) (dismissal on statute of limitations grounds constitutes disposition 7 || on the merits rendering subsequent petition “second or successive’’); Henderson v. 8 || Lampert, 396 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir.) (dismissal on procedural default grounds 9 || constitutes disposition on the merits rendering subsequent petition “second or 10 || successive’), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 884 (2005); Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 11 | 514 U.S. 211, 228 (1995) (dismissal for failure to prosecute treated as judgment on 12 || the merits) (citations omitted). 13 The First Federal Petition in the First Federal Action was denied on its 14 | merits — not for a technical or procedural reason. Accordingly, the Current Federal 15 || Petition is successive. Since petitioner filed the Current Federal Petition without 16 || authorization from the Ninth Circuit, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. ORDER 18 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Current Federal Petition and this 19 || action are dismissed without prejudice. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 53 DATED: September 10, 2025
24 A frge Ky 25 HONORABLE GEORGE H. WU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27 28