Valdez v. Speer

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 3, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05035
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT TACOMA

8 SAMUEL VALDEZ,

9 Petitioner, Case No. C25-5035-BHS-SKV

10 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 SCOTT SPEER,

12 Respondent.

14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Petitioner Samuel Valdez is a state prisoner who is currently confined at the Stafford 16 Creek Corrections Center in Aberdeen, Washington. He has presented to the Court for filing a 17 petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his confinement pursuant 18 to the judgment and sentence entered in Wahkiakum County Superior Court case number 15-1- 19 00020-4. See Dkt. 1-1 at 1. Petitioner previously filed another federal habeas petition relating to 20 the same judgment. This Court, having reviewed the petition filed in this matter, and Petitioner’s 21 prior petition, concludes the instant petition is a second or successive petition over which this 22 Court lacks jurisdiction, and the petition should therefore be dismissed. 23

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Petitioner submitted the instant federal habeas petition to the Court for filing on January 3 14, 2025. See Dkt. 1. As noted above, the petition relates to the judgement and sentence entered

4 in Wahkiakum County Superior Court case number 15-1-00020-4. See Dkt. 1-1 at 1. Petitioner 5 seeks relief from that judgment on the ground that he was denied counsel at a critical stage of his 6 criminal proceedings, specifically, his arraignment. See id. at 6. 7 The Ninth Circuit has held that “28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the exclusive vehicle for a habeas 8 petition by a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment[.]” White v. Lambert, 9 370 F.3d 1002, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 10 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is 11 therefore properly construed as one brought pursuant to § 2254. A review of this Court’s records 12 reveals that Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition challenging the same Wahkiakum County 13 Superior Court judgment and sentence on May 3, 2021. See Valdez v. Haynes, C21-5322-DGE,

14 Dkt. 1-1. That petition was dismissed on the merits on July 22, 2022. See id., Dkts. 30, 39, 40. 15 The fact that Petitioner had a previous federal habeas petition challenging the judgment at 16 issue here dismissed on the merits renders the instant petition a second or successive one for 17 purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). This Court is without jurisdiction to 18 consider a successive petition until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has authorized its filing. 19 See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner provides no evidence that the Ninth Circuit has 20 authorized the filing of the instant petition. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider 21 it. 22 // 23 //

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 1 III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 2 A petitioner seeking post-conviction relief under § 2254 may appeal a district court’s 3 dismissal of his federal habeas petition only after obtaining a certificate of appealability from a

4 district or circuit judge. A certificate of appealability may issue only where a petitioner has 5 made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 6 A petitioner satisfies this standard “by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with 7 the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 8 presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 9 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Under this standard, this Court concludes Petitioner is not entitled to a 10 certificate of appealability in this matter. 11 IV. CONCLUSION 12 Based on the foregoing, this Court recommends that Petitioner’s federal habeas petition 13 (Dkt. 1-1) and this action be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a) for lack of jurisdiction, and

14 that a certificate of appealability be denied. This Court further recommends that Petitioner’s 15 application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1), and all motions submitted by Petitioner in this 16 action (Dkts. 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 3, 4), be denied as moot. A proposed Order accompanies this 17 Report and Recommendation. 18 Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and 19 served upon all parties to this suit not later than fourteen (14) days from the date on which this 20 Report and Recommendation is signed. Failure to file objections within the specified time may 21 affect your right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge’s 22 motions calendar fourteen (14) days from the date they are filed. Responses to objections may 23

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 1 be filed by the day before the noting date. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be 2 ready for consideration by the District Judge on February 24, 2025. 3 DATED this 3rd day of February, 2025.

5 A S. KATE VAUGHAN 6 United States Magistrate Judge

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION