(HC) Iseli v. The People of the State of CA

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 13, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00530
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDEN WILLIE ISELI, No. 2:25-cv-0530 CSK P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and separately filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 20 Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 21 the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 23 As discussed below, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice 24 as second or successive. 25 I. THE PETITION 26 Petitioner challenges his conviction for murder and attempted murder in San Joaquin 27 County Superior Court Case No. STK-CR-FE-2017-0016638. (ECF No. 1.) 28 /// 1 II. GOVERNING STANDARDS 2 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), a second or successive application for habeas relief 3 may not be filed in district court without prior authorization by the court of appeals. Felker v. 4 Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996). Prior authorization is a jurisdictional requisite. Burton v. 5 Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152-53 (2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) 6 (once district court has recognized a petition as second or successive pursuant to § 2244(b), it 7 lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits). A petition is successive within the meaning of 28 8 U.S.C. § 2244(b) where it “seeks to add a new ground for relief” or “if it attacks the federal 9 court’s previous resolution of a claim on the merits.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 10 (2005) (emphasis in original). “[A] ‘claim’ as used in § 2244(b) is an asserted federal basis for 11 relief from a state court’s judgment of conviction.” Id. at 530. “Even if a petitioner can 12 demonstrate that he qualifies for one of [the] exceptions [to filing a second or successive 13 petition], he must seek authorization from the court of appeals before filing his new petition with 14 the district court.” Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. 15 § 2244(b)(3)). 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 The court’s records reveal that petitioner has previously filed a petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus attacking the conviction and sentence challenged in this case. The previous 19 petition was filed on August 22, 2022, and was denied on the merits on March 13, 2023. Iseli v. 20 People of the State of California, No. 2:22-cv-1483 TLN EFB (E.D. Cal.).1 Because the instant 21 petition challenges the same conviction and sentence as the one challenged in No. 2:22-cv-1483 22 TLN EFB, the instant petition is second or successive. Before petitioner can proceed with the 23 instant petition, he must file a motion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 24 to obtain an order authorizing the district court to consider the instant petition, and the Ninth 25 Circuit must grant his motion and authorize him to file the petition in the district court. 28 U.S.C. 26 1 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See, e.g., Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 27 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to 28 matters at issue”) (internal quotation omitted). 1 |} § 2244(b)(3). Petitioner provided no evidence that he has received the required authorization 2 || from the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed without 3 || prejudice to re-filing once petitioner receives authorization to proceed from the Ninth Circuit. 4 | IV. CONCLUSION 5 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is granted; and 7 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. 8 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 11 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 12 || objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 13 || Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 14 || specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 15 | F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 | Dated: March 12, 2025 A aA i Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 || /1/isel0530.suce 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28