Jeffrey Geddes v. Kimberly Menninger

C.D. California

Jeffrey Geddes v. Kimberly Menninger

DecidedMarch 12, 2020

Docket8:20-cv-00471

StatusUnknown

This text of Jeffrey Geddes v. Kimberly Menninger (Jeffrey Geddes v. Kimberly Menninger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jeffrey Geddes v. Kimberly Menninger, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 JS-6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 12 13 JEFFREY GEDDES, ) Case No. SACV 20-00471-JFW (AS) ) 14 Petitioner, ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL ) 15 ) v. ) 16 ) KIMBERLY MENNINGER, ) 17 ) Respondent. ) 18 ) 19 20 BACKGROUND 21 22 On March 9, 2020, Jeffrey Geddes (“Petitioner”), a California 23 state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a “Petition for Writ of 24 Habeas Corpus” (Docket Entry No. 1), which the Court construes as 25 a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 26 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). Petitioner is challenging his 2017 27 conviction for carjacking (pursuant to a plea agreement) and the 28 resulting 3-year sentence in the Orange County Superior Court (Case No. 17WF1049). While the claims alleged are 2|| incomprehensible, Petitioner appears to contend that he is in custody based on charges that were dismissed and requests that the 4]| Court call the Orange County Superior Court to obtain the “facts.” (See Petition at 2-4). 6 7 On September 30, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the same conviction.' See Jeffrey Geddes _v. Orange County Judge Michael Murray, Case No. SACV 19- O1871-JFW (AS); Docket Entry No. 1 (“the prior habeas action”). January 31, 2020, the district court issued an Order and Judgment denying that habeas petition with prejudice (based on Petitioner’s failure to comply with Court orders and failure to prosecute), in accordance with the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. (Id.; Docket Entry Nos. 6-8). On January 31, 2020, the district court denied Petitioner a certificate of appealability. (Id.; Docket Entry No. 9). 19 20 On February 20, 2020, Petitioner filed what the Court construed as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the same 23 |} conviction. See Jeffrey Geddes v. Cynthia M. Herrea, Judge, Orange County Court, Case No. SACV 20-00349-JEW (AS); Docket Entry 25 26 1 Since Petitioner was in state custody, Petitioner’s 27 prior federal habeas petition should have been brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, rather than 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 28

1 No. 1). On February 25, 2020, the district court dismissed that 2 habeas petition without prejudice as an unauthorized, successive 3 petition. (Id.; Docket Entry No. 3). 4 5 DISCUSSION 6 7 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 8 (“AEDPA”), enacted on April 24, 1996, provides in pertinent part 9 that: 10 (a) No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus 11 to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States if it appears 12 that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior 13 application for a writ of habeas corpus, except as provided in §2255. 14 (b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive 15 habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. 16 (2) A claim presented in a second or successive 17 habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed 18 unless-- 19 (A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to 20 cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or 21 (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could 22 not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and 23 (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and 24 viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence 25 that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the 26 underlying offense. 27 (3)(A) Before a second or successive application 28 3 1 permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court 2 of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. 3 (B) A motion in the court of appeals for an order 4 authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive application shall be determined by a three- 5 judge panel of the court of appeals. 6 (C) The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it 7 determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements 8 of this subsection. 9 (D) The court of appeals shall grant or deny the authorization to file a second or successive application 10 not later than 30 days after the filing of the motion. 11 (E) The grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive 12 application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a Petition for Rehearing or for a Writ of 13 Certiorari. 14 (4) A district court shall dismiss any claim presented in a second or successive application that the 15 court of appeals has authorized to be filed unless the applicant shows that the claim satisfies the 16 requirements of this section. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. 17 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) “creates a ‘gatekeeping’ mechanism for 18 the consideration of second or successive applications in district 19 court. The prospective applicant must file in the court of 20 appeals a motion for leave to file a second or successive habeas 21 application in the district court. § 2244(b)(3)(A).” Felker v. 22 Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996). 23 24 The instant Petition, filed on March 9, 2020, and the prior 25 habeas action both challenge Petitioner’s custody pursuant to the 26 same 2017 judgment entered by the Orange County Superior Court. 27 28 4 Accordingly, the instant Petition is a second or successive habeas petition for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Therefore, Petitioner was required to obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals before filing the present Petition. See 28 U.S.C. §2244 (b) (3) (A). such authorization has been obtained in this case. 6 7 Moreover, the claim asserted in the instant Petition does not appear to fall within the exceptions to the bar on second or 9|| successive petitions because the asserted claim is not based on 10] newly discovered facts or a “a new rule of constitutional law, ll!) made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 662 (2001). However, this determination must be made by the United States Court of Appeals upon a petitioner’s motion for an order authorizing the district court to consider his second or successive petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); see also Burton v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 JS-6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 12 13 JEFFREY GEDDES, ) Case No. SACV 20-00471-JFW (AS) ) 14 Petitioner, ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL ) 15 ) v. ) 16 ) KIMBERLY MENNINGER, ) 17 ) Respondent. ) 18 ) 19 20 BACKGROUND 21 22 On March 9, 2020, Jeffrey Geddes (“Petitioner”), a California 23 state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a “Petition for Writ of 24 Habeas Corpus” (Docket Entry No. 1), which the Court construes as 25 a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 26 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). Petitioner is challenging his 2017 27 conviction for carjacking (pursuant to a plea agreement) and the 28 resulting 3-year sentence in the Orange County Superior Court (Case No. 17WF1049). While the claims alleged are 2|| incomprehensible, Petitioner appears to contend that he is in custody based on charges that were dismissed and requests that the 4]| Court call the Orange County Superior Court to obtain the “facts.” (See Petition at 2-4). 6 7 On September 30, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the same conviction.' See Jeffrey Geddes _v. Orange County Judge Michael Murray, Case No. SACV 19- O1871-JFW (AS); Docket Entry No. 1 (“the prior habeas action”). January 31, 2020, the district court issued an Order and Judgment denying that habeas petition with prejudice (based on Petitioner’s failure to comply with Court orders and failure to prosecute), in accordance with the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. (Id.; Docket Entry Nos. 6-8). On January 31, 2020, the district court denied Petitioner a certificate of appealability. (Id.; Docket Entry No. 9). 19 20 On February 20, 2020, Petitioner filed what the Court construed as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the same 23 |} conviction. See Jeffrey Geddes v. Cynthia M. Herrea, Judge, Orange County Court, Case No. SACV 20-00349-JEW (AS); Docket Entry 25 26 1 Since Petitioner was in state custody, Petitioner’s 27 prior federal habeas petition should have been brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, rather than 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 28

1 No. 1). On February 25, 2020, the district court dismissed that 2 habeas petition without prejudice as an unauthorized, successive 3 petition. (Id.; Docket Entry No. 3). 4 5 DISCUSSION 6 7 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 8 (“AEDPA”), enacted on April 24, 1996, provides in pertinent part 9 that: 10 (a) No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus 11 to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States if it appears 12 that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior 13 application for a writ of habeas corpus, except as provided in §2255. 14 (b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive 15 habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. 16 (2) A claim presented in a second or successive 17 habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed 18 unless-- 19 (A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to 20 cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or 21 (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could 22 not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and 23 (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and 24 viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence 25 that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the 26 underlying offense. 27 (3)(A) Before a second or successive application 28 3 1 permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court 2 of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. 3 (B) A motion in the court of appeals for an order 4 authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive application shall be determined by a three- 5 judge panel of the court of appeals. 6 (C) The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it 7 determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements 8 of this subsection. 9 (D) The court of appeals shall grant or deny the authorization to file a second or successive application 10 not later than 30 days after the filing of the motion. 11 (E) The grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive 12 application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a Petition for Rehearing or for a Writ of 13 Certiorari. 14 (4) A district court shall dismiss any claim presented in a second or successive application that the 15 court of appeals has authorized to be filed unless the applicant shows that the claim satisfies the 16 requirements of this section. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. 17 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) “creates a ‘gatekeeping’ mechanism for 18 the consideration of second or successive applications in district 19 court. The prospective applicant must file in the court of 20 appeals a motion for leave to file a second or successive habeas 21 application in the district court. § 2244(b)(3)(A).” Felker v. 22 Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996). 23 24 The instant Petition, filed on March 9, 2020, and the prior 25 habeas action both challenge Petitioner’s custody pursuant to the 26 same 2017 judgment entered by the Orange County Superior Court. 27 28 4 Accordingly, the instant Petition is a second or successive habeas petition for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Therefore, Petitioner was required to obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals before filing the present Petition. See 28 U.S.C. §2244 (b) (3) (A). such authorization has been obtained in this case. 6 7 Moreover, the claim asserted in the instant Petition does not appear to fall within the exceptions to the bar on second or 9|| successive petitions because the asserted claim is not based on 10] newly discovered facts or a “a new rule of constitutional law, ll!) made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 662 (2001). However, this determination must be made by the United States Court of Appeals upon a petitioner’s motion for an order authorizing the district court to consider his second or successive petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (where the petitioner did not receive authorization from the Court of Appeals before filing 19! second or successive petition, “the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain [the petition]”); Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1111 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he prior-appellate-review 22||/mechanism set forth in § 2244(b) requires the permission of the 23] court of appeals before ‘a second or successive habeas application under § 2254’ may be commenced.”). 25 26 Because Petitioner has not obtained authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court cannot entertain the 28

present Petition. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. at 157. 2 3 ORDER 4 5 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice. 7 8 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 9 10 || DATED: March 12, 2020 11 12 7% (Lie JOHN F. WALTER 13 NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jeffrey Geddes v. Kimberly Menninger, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeffrey-geddes-v-kimberly-menninger-cacd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack