United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY DISMISSAL OF HABEAS PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
R. GARY KLAUSNER, District Judge.
On or about September 16, 2014, petitioner Carlos Maldonado ("Petitioner") constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody ("Petition"). Petitioner challenges a conviction and sentence imposed by the Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2003.
The Court takes judicial notice of its files with respect to a prior habeas petition (the "Prior Petition") Petitioner filed in this Court on or about January 6, 2006, Case No. EDCV 05-1004 RGK (FFM). The Court notes that the Prior Petition was directed to the same conviction and/or sentence sustained in Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2003. On June 13, 2008, Judgment was entered in Case No. EDCV 05-1004 RGK (FFM) 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 Petition, 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, the district court shall refer it to the court of appeals."
Therefore, to the extent the Petition was "mistakenly submitted" to this Court, the Petition must be referred to the court of appeals. However, on its face the Petition states that it is directed to this Court and nothing in the Petition sets forth any basis for concluding that it was filed with the intention of obtaining any order permitting the filing of a second or successive petition. Thus, the Court cannot conclude that the Petition was mistakenly submitted to this Court. Moreover, any such transfer to the court of appeals would appear to be a useless act in that the one year ...