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.

Jeffries v. Biter

United States District Court, C.D. California

June 12, 2014

BARRINGTON D. JEFFRIES, Sr., Petitioner,
v.
M.D. BITER (Warden), Respondent.

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; REFERRING THE PETITION TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS PURSUANT TO NINTH CIRCUIT RULE 22-3(A); DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, District Judge.

DISMISSAL OF HABEAS PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On or about April 9, 2014, petitioner Barrington D. Jeffries, Sr. ("Petitioner") constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody ("Petition").[1] Petitioner challenges a conviction and sentence imposed by the Los Angeles County Superior Court in Case No. LA024643 in 1997.[2]

The Court takes judicial notice of its files with respect to a prior habeas petition (the "Prior Petition") Petitioner constructively filed in this Court on or about December 15, 1998, Case No. CV 98-10281 WDK (CT). The Court notes that the Prior Petition was directed to the same conviction and/or sentence sustained in Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. LA024643. On April 16, 1999, Judgment was entered in Case No. CV 98-10281 WDK (CT) denying the Prior Petition on the merits and dismissing the action with prejudice.

The Petition now pending is governed by the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214) ("the Act") which became effective April 24, 1996. Section 106 of the Act amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) to read, in pertinent part, as follows:

"(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 exercise of due diligence; and
(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.
(3)(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application."

Therefore, because the Petition now pending challenges the same conviction as Petitioner's prior habeas petition in Case No.CV 98-10281 WDK (CT), it constitutes a second and/or successive petition within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). To the extent Petitioner seeks to pursue the same claims he previously asserted, the Petition is barred by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). To the extent Petitioner seeks to pursue claims not previously asserted, as appears to be the case, it was incumbent on him under § 2244(b)(3)(A) to secure an order from the Ninth Circuit authorizing the District Court to consider the Petition, prior to his filing of it in this Court. Petitioner's failure to secure such an order from the Ninth Circuit deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

"REFERRAL" OF HABEAS CORPUS PETITION TO NINTH CIRCUIT

Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3(a) states, in pertinent part, that "[i]f a second or successive petition or motion, or an application for authorization to file such a petition or motion, is mistakenly submitted to the district court, ...


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.