(HC) Reyes v. Matteson

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ISIDRO REYES, Case No. 1:24-cv-00075-EPG-HC

12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S 14 GIGI MATTESON, MOTION TO CONDUCT FRANKLIN HEARING 15 Respondent. (ECF No. 2) 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 17 TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

18 19 Petitioner Isidro Reyes is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 20 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned 21 recommends that the petition be dismissed as an unauthorized successive petition. 22 I. 23 DISCUSSION 24 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 25 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 26 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 27 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 1 A. Second or Successive Petition 2 A federal court must dismiss a second or successive petition that raises the same grounds 3 as a prior petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). The court must also dismiss a second or successive 4 petition raising a new ground unless the petitioner can show that (1) the claim rests on a new, 5 retroactive, constitutional right, or (2) the factual basis of the claim was not previously 6 discoverable through due diligence, and these new facts establish by clear and convincing 7 evidence that but for the constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the 8 applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)–(B). However, it is not the 9 district court that decides whether a second or successive petition meets these requirements. 10 Section 2244(b)(3)(A) provides: “Before a second or successive application permitted by 11 this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of 12 appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” In other words, a 13 petitioner must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before he can file a second or successive 14 petition in district court. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656–57 (1996). This Court must 15 dismiss any second or successive petition unless the Court of Appeals has given a petitioner 16 leave to file the petition because a district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a second or 17 successive petition. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007). 18 Here, Petitioner challenges his 2019 Tulare County Superior Court first-degree murder 19 conviction for which he was sentenced to an imprisonment term of fifty years to life. (ECF No. 1 20 at 1.1) Petitioner previously sought federal habeas relief in this Court with respect to the same 21 conviction, and the petition was denied on the merits on February 14, 2024. See Order, Reyes v. 22 Matteson, No. 1:23-cv-00958-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2024), ECF No. 19.2 Thus, the Court 23 finds that the instant petition is “second or successive” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). As Petitioner 24 has already filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus regarding his 2019 Tulare County 25 Superior Court conviction, Petitioner cannot file another petition in this Court regarding the same 26 conviction without first obtaining permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the

27 1 Page numbers refer to ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page. 2 The Court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 1 Ninth Circuit. Petitioner makes no showing that he has obtained prior leave from the Ninth 2 Circuit to file this successive petition. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider 3 Petitioner’s renewed application for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and must dismiss the petition. 4 See Burton, 549 U.S. at 157. 5 B. Motion to Conduct Franklin Hearing 6 Along with the petition, Petitioner filed a motion for the Court to conduct a hearing 7 pursuant to California Penal Code sections 1203.1, 3051, and 4801 and People v. Franklin, 63 8 Cal.4th 261, 284 (2016). (ECF No. 2.) It appears that the motion was mistakenly mailed to this 9 Court because it is addressed to the Tulare County Superior Court and the Tulare County District 10 Attorney’s Office. (Id. at 1, 6.) Further, the basis for the motion is state law. Accordingly, the 11 undersigned recommends that the motion be denied. 12 II. 13 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 14 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 15 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as an unauthorized successive 16 petition; and 17 2. Petitioner’s motion to conduct a Franklin hearing (ECF No. 2) be DENIED. 18 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Court Judge to 19 the present matter. 20 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 21 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 22 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 23 Within THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may 24 file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 25 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 26 United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 27 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 1 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 2 | 834, 839 (th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. S| Dated: _Mareh 12, 2024 [Je hey —— 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28