Pulley v. Paramo

Opinion

ROBERT G. PULLEY, Case No.: 14-CV-2034 JLS (MDD)

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S v. MOTION TO REOPEN PROCEEDINGS DANIEL PARAMO, Warden; and

KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney (ECF No. 71) General, Respondents. This closed federal habeas corpus action was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by pro se state prisoner Robert G. Pulley. The Court denied the Petition and entered judgment in favor of Respondents on November 14, 2016. ECF Nos. 54, 55. Petitioner filed multiple appeals in this matter, see ECF Nos. 56, 57, 63, all of which were denied or dismissed as duplicative, see ECF Nos. 61, 65, 66. Petitioner filed a post-judgment motion on June 2, 2021, ECF No. 68, which the Court construed as a second or successive habeas petition and subsequently denied (the “Order”), ECF No. 69. The present Motion, which Petitioner titled “Motion to Reopen Proceedings,” followed. ECF No. 71. The present Motion repeats the same arguments previously rejected by the Court as a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Compare ECF No. 68 at 23–24 (“[T]he district court fail[ed] to properly address and properly consider . . . new ineffective assistance of counsel claims containing newly presented exculpatory evidence counsel withheld from the jury[.]’”), with ECF No. 71 at 14-15 (“[ T]he district court fail[ed] properly address and properly consider . . . new ineffective assistance of counsel claims containing newly presented exculpatory evidence counsel withheld from the jury[.]’). For reasons articulated in the Order, the Court finds this Motion is also a second or successive petition. See ECF No. 69. For those reasons stated in the Order, Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED, and this second or successive petition is DISMISSED. A certificate of appealability will not issue. Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district }court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The judgment and the order dismissing the Petition remain in effect. This case remains closed. Dated: April 5, 2022 . tt f te on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge