Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alonzo L. Collins v. Charles D. Sheldon

January 24, 2011

ALONZO L. COLLINS,
PETITIONER,
v.
CHARLES D. SHELDON, JUDGE,
RESPONDENT.*FN1



The opinion of the court was delivered by: United States District Judge Margaret M. Morrow

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

I. BACKGROUND

On January 13, 2011, pro se petitioner, in state custody, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody ("Petition"). In his Petition, petitioner challenges the sentence resulting from his 1997 conviction for petty theft with a prior conviction, Los Angeles County Superior Court (Case No. NA031615). (Petition at 3). The Petition solely alleges that the trial court failed to sign his name and misspelled petitioner's last name on the Abstract of Judgment, in violation of petitioner's Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. (Petition at 4, Attachment at 2-3).

II. DISCUSSION

On March 12, 1999, petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody herein (Case Number CV 99-02559-MMM (JWJ))). In that habeas petition, petitioner challenged the same 1997 conviction and sentence. On July 20, 2000, the district court dismissed that habeas petition with prejudice. On November 1, 2000, the district court denied petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability. On April 18, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Judgment.

On October 30, 2003, petitioner filed another Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody herein (Case Number CV 03-07806-MMM (JWJ)). On December 24, 2003, petitioner filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Petition. In those habeas petitions, petitioner challenged the same 1997 conviction and sentence. On June 3, 2004, the district court dismissed those habeas petitions with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations.

On May 20, 2005, petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. That habeas petition was ordered transferred and was filed herein on June 9, 2005 (Case No. CV 05-04169-MMM (JWJ)). In that habeas petition, petitioner challenged the same 1997 conviction and sentence, and alleged essentially the same claim as the claim alleged in the instant Petition. On September 6, 2005, the district court dismissed that habeas petition as an unauthorized, successive petition.

On October 23, 2008, petitioner filed another Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody herein (Case No. CV 08-06988-MMM (JWJ)). In that habeas petition, petitioner challenged the same 1997 conviction and sentence, and alleged inter alia essentially the same claim as the claim alleged in the instant Petition. On October 30, 2009, the district court dismissed that habeas petition with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), enacted on April 24, 1996, provides in pertinent part that:

(a) No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States if it appears that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus, except as provided in §2255.

(b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.

(2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless--

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or

(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.