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.

Nichols v. Soto

United States District Court, C.D. California

August 15, 2014

JOSEPH NICHOLS, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN JOHN SOTO, et al., Respondents.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

STEPHEN J. HILLMAN, Magistrate Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 13, 2014, pro se petitioner Joseph Nichols, in state custody, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody ("Petition"). The Petition challenges his 1993 convictions for kidnapping for robbery, second degree robbery, attempting to dissuade a witness, evading a peace officer, and a firearm allegation, in Los Angeles County Superior Court (Petitioner received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (3) The prosecutor committed misconduct by withholding and destroying exculpatory evidence; (4) The trial court denied petitioner discovery; (5) There was insufficient evidence to support petitioner's convictions; and (6) Petitioner's convictions were based on knowingly false evidence. (Petition, Attachment at A, B and 65-67.)

II. DISCUSSION

On October 18, 1999, petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus herein (Case number CV 99-10778-LGB (SH)). In that habeas petition, petitioner challenged the same 1993 convictions. On June 23, 2000, the district court denied that Petition with prejudice, in accordance with the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge (finding that the petition was time barred). On July 12, 2000, the district court denied petitioner's Petition for a Certificate of Appealability. On December 28, 2000, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitioner's Request for a Certificate of Appealability.

On May 26, 2006, petitioner filed a second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus herein (Case number CV 06-3278-DSF (SH)). In that habeas petition, petitioner challenged the same 1993 convictions. On May 31, 2006, the district court dismissed that petition because it was an unauthorized successive petition.

On June 30, 2006, petitioner filed a third Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus herein (Case number CV 06-4168-DSF (SH)). In that habeas petition, petitioner challenged the same 1993 convictions. On July 6, 2006, the district court dismissed that petition because it was an unauthorized successive petition.

On July 18, 2006, petitioner filed a fourth Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus herein (Case number CV 06-4481-DSF (SH)). In that habeas petition, petitioner challenged the same 1993 convictions. On July 20, 2006, the district court dismissed that petition because it was an unauthorized successive petition.

On July 24, 2009, petitioner filed a fifth Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody herein (Case number CV 09-5418-DSF (SH)). In that habeas petition, petitioner challenged the same 1993 convictions. On August 11, 2009, the district court dismissed that petition because it too was an unauthorized successive petition. On February 11, 2010, the district court denied petitioner's motion to vacate the Judgment. On March 17, 2010, the district court denied petitioner's Request for a Certificate of Appealability. On April 7, 2010, the district court denied petitioner's Application for a Certificate of Appealability. On September 1, 2010, the district court denied petitioner's second motion to vacate the Judgment.

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 ยง2255.
(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 ...

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.