The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS A SUCCESSIVE PETITION (Doc. 1) AND TO DECLINE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
DEADLINE FOR OBJECTIONS: THIRTY (30) DAYS
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 302 and 304. Pending before the Court is the petition, which was filed on June 4, 2010.
I. Screening the Petition
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court...." Habeas Rule 4; O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all grounds of relief available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts supporting each ground; and 3) state the relief requested. Notice pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error. Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption; O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977)). Allegations in a petition that are vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to summary dismissal. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).
Further, the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus either on its own motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 8, 1976 Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2001).
Petitioner is an inmate of the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran, California (CSATFSP), who is serving a sentence of fifteen years to life imposed by the Fresno County Superior Court for a murder committed on or about August 4, 1992. (Pet. 12, 64.) Petitioner challenges his conviction on the grounds that his plea should be withdrawn because his confession was involuntary, he was denied the assistance of counsel during interrogation, and the sentence was misrepresented. (Pet. 1-31.)
The present petition is not the first petition filed with respect to the judgment pursuant to which Petitioner is detained. The Court may take judicial notice of court records. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993); Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court will take judicial notice of its own dockets.
On June 18, 2004, a habeas petition challenging Petitioner's Fresno County conviction and sentence was denied on the merits by this Court in Raul Segura Sanchez v. Steven Cambra, 1:98-cv-05329-REC-DLB. (Docs. 71, 75, 76.) The Court concluded that the petition was untimely because it was filed outside of the statute of limitations provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), and Petitioner was not entitled to tolling under the statute or under the doctrine of equitable tolling. (Doc. 71, 3-30.)
The Court must determine whether the petition in the present case is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244 as a successive petition.
Because the petition in the present case was filed after the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the AEDPA applies to the petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. ...