George William Vetter v. S. Williams

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE WILLIAM VETTER, Case No. CV 26-02103-MCS (RAO)

12 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING 13 v. SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK 14 S. WILLIAMS, OF JURISDICTION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 On February 17, 2026, Petitioner George William Vetter filed a Petition for 19 Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. No. 1 (“Pet.”). Petitioner seeks habeas relief in connection with 21 his current state custody arising from his 2002 conviction in Los Angeles County 22 Superior Court, case number NA-047806. Pet. at 2. 23 The records of this Court establish that Petitioner has filed multiple habeas 24 petitions challenging his 2002 conviction. His first habeas petition was denied on 25 the merits on November 3, 2009. See Vetter v. Ayers, CV 06-01728-R-RC (C.D. Cal. 26 Nov. 3, 2009), Dkt. Nos. 38, 39 (Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and 27 28 1 Judgment).1 Thereafter, Petitioner filed a habeas petition on October 3, 2017, which 2 was dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive petition. See Vetter v. Martel, 3 CV 17-07282-R-JEM (C.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2017), Dkt. No. 5 (Order Summarily 4 Dismissing Successive Petition and Denying Certificate of Appealability). Next, 5 Petitioner filed a habeas petition on May 5, 2023, which was also summarily 6 dismissed as successive. See Vetter v. Jones, CV 23-03489 MCS-RAO (C.D. Cal. 7 May 19, 2023), Dkt. No. 7 (Order Summarily Dismissing Successive Petition and 8 Denying Certificate of Appealability). The Ninth Circuit subsequently denied 9 Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability. Id., Dkt. No. 11. Lastly, on 10 December 30, 2024, Petitioner filed a habeas petition, which was summarily 11 dismissed as successive. See Vetter v. Cuevas, CV 24-11261 MCS-RAO (C. D. Cal. 12 Jan. 13, 2025), Dkt. No. 4 (Order Summarily Dismissing Successive Petition and 13 Denying Certificate of Appealability). 14 Because neither the Petition itself nor the records of the Ninth Circuit show 15 that Petitioner has obtained authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file a successive 16 petition in this Court, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 The United States Supreme Court has explained: 19 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) established a stringent set of procedures that a 20 prisoner “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State 21 court,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), must follow if he wishes to file a “second or successive” habeas corpus application 22 challenging that custody, § 2244(b)(1). In pertinent part, 23 before filing the application in the district court, a prisoner 24 1 The Court takes judicial notice of the dockets of the habeas actions filed by 25 Petitioner in the Central District of California. See Fed. R. Evid. 201 (providing that 26 a court may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts that “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”); 27 Harris v. Cty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that a court 28 may take judicial notice of federal and state court records). 1 “shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 2 § 2244(b)(3)(A). A three-judge panel of the court of 3 appeals may authorize the filing of the second or successive application only if it presents a claim not previously raised 4 that satisfies one of the two grounds articulated in 5 § 2244(b)(2). § 2244(b)(3)(C); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 529-530, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 162 L. Ed. 2d 480 6 (2005); see also Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-657, 7 664, 116 S. Ct. 2333, 135 L. Ed. 2d 827 (1996). 8 Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152-53, 127 S. Ct. 793, 166 L. Ed. 2d 628 (2007). 9 The Court finds that Petitioner’s present Petition is clearly a second or 10 successive habeas petition. Moreover, the Petition and records of the Ninth Circuit 11 establish that Petitioner has not sought, and been granted, authorization by the Ninth 12 Circuit to file a successive petition to raise his claims. 13 For these reasons, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the 14 Petition. Therefore, the reference to the Magistrate Judge is vacated and the Petition 15 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Burton, 549 U.S. at 152-53. The Clerk is 16 directed to enter judgment dismissing the Petition. 17 III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 18 Under AEDPA, a state prisoner seeking to appeal a district court’s final order 19 in a habeas corpus proceeding must obtain a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) 20 from the district judge or a circuit judge. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA may 21 issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 22 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by 23 demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution 24 of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are 25 adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 26 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 154 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003). 27 /// 28 1 When the Court dismisses a petition on procedural grounds, it must issue a 2 || COA if the petitioner shows: (1) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable 3 || whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right”; and 4 || (2) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 5 || correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478, 120 S. Ct. 6 || 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000). 7 Here, the Court is dismissing the Petition without prejudice because it is a 8 || successive petition without proper authorization from the Ninth Circuit. Since the 9 || Petition is patently a successive petition, Petitioner cannot make the requisite 10 || showing that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 11 || correct in its procedural ruling. 12 IV. ORDER 13 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 14 1. The Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; and 15 2. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. 16 17 || DATED: March 5, 2026 4 / 18 * MARK C. SCARSI 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28