Imade Jati v. Ralph Diaz

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 16, 2020
• Docket: 8:20-cv-00464
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 IMADE JATI, Case No. 8:20-00464 JFW (ADS) 11 Petitioner,

12 v. ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AND DENYING 13 RALPH DIAZ, Secretary, CDCR, CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

14 Respondent.

16 Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) filed by 17 Petitioner Imade Jati, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California. 18 [Dkt. No. 1]. The Court’s review of the Petition, the Court’s own records, and public 19 records reveals that this Petition is a second or successive petition and Petitioner has 20 not obtained permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before filing it. 21 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 22 The Court restates here the procedural background from the 2019 opinion of the 23 Orange County Superior Court, attached to the Petition: 24 1 Petitioner is presently serving a sentence of 80 years in state prison, imposed in 2010 after a jury found him guilty of a total of 13 counts of 2 forcible rape, sexual penetration with a foreign object by force and sexual penetration of a minor by a foreign object. The court additionally ordered 3 petitioner to pay the maximum restitution fine of $10,000 pursuant to Penal Code § 1202.4(b), as well as the criminal assessment fee of $30 and 4 court security fee of $30. Judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in 2011 (G043699). Petitions for writ of habeas corpus have been denied 5 in [the Superior Court for Orange County] (M-14210) and the United States District Court for the Central District of California (SACV-12-20273 6 GAF).

7 [Dkt. No. 1, p. 15]. 8 A review of this Court’s own records reflects that on November 6, 2012, Petitioner 9 filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody commencing 10 Case No. 12-20273 GAF (AN) (“First Habeas Action”), challenging his 2010 conviction. 11 After determining that Petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief, judgment was 12 entered dismissing the First Habeas Action with prejudice on October 21, 2013. [First 13 Habeas Action, Case No. 12-20273, Dkt. Nos. 23 and 29]. 14 On February 27, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant Petition. [Dkt. No. 1]. 15 Petitioner asserts (1) the restitution and prison term imposed by the Superior Court 16 violated due process because they were imposed without first holding a hearing on 17 Petitioner’s ability to pay restitution and (2) the Superior Court’s denial of Petitioner’s 18 second state habeas petition in 2019 violated due process. [Id., pp. 10–14]. Although 19 the Petition indicates it is Petitioner’s first federal habeas petition, [Id., p. 5], it attaches 20 a copy of a 2019 Superior Court order denying Petitioner’s second state habeas petition, 21 stating that a federal writ of habeas corpus was previously denied in the Central District 22 of California. [Id., p. 15]. 23 24 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 This Petition is an improper second or successive habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. 3 § 2244 reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

4 (b) (1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application 5 shall be dismissed. . . . 6 (3) (A) Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate 7 court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. 8 9 28 U.S.C. § 2244; see also Rule 9 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (“Before 10 presenting a second or successive motion, the moving party must obtain an order from 11 the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the motion . . . 12 .”). Furthermore, Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases provides that if it plainly 13 appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits attached to it that the Petitioner is 14 not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall summarily dismiss the petition. 15 The instant Petition is a second federal habeas petition challenging Petitioner’s 16 2010 judgment of conviction in the Orange County Superior Court. Petitioner has 17 provided no evidence that he obtained Ninth Circuit permission to file a second or 18 successive petition. A search of the Ninth Circuit’s electronic docketing system does not 19 reflect that Petitioner sought or obtained permission. “If an application is ‘second or 20 successive,’ the petitioner must obtain leave from the Court of Appeals before filing it 21 with the district court.” Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 330–31 (2010) (citing 22 27 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)). “When the AEDPA is in play, the district court may not, in 23 the absence of proper authorization from the court of appeals, consider a second or 24 1 || successive habeas application.” Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) 2 || (per curiam) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 3 CONCLUSION 4 The Petition is a “second or successive” petition without evidence that Petitioner 5 || obtained prior approval to file it by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As such, this 6 || Court lacks jurisdiction to consider its merits. Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED 7 || THAT the Petition is summarily dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 8 9 || Dated: March 16, 2020 □□ WLibdE THE HQNORABLE JOHN F. WALTER 10 erieat tates District Judge 11 || Presented by: 12 ||___—/s/ Autumn D. Spaeth _ THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH 13 || United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24