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.

Karim v. Valenzuela

United States District Court, C.D. California

December 19, 2014

SHONTA JOWARN KARIM, Petitioner,
v.
ELVIN VALENZUELA, Warden, et al., Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER Referring Habeas Petition to U.S. Court of Appeals per Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3(a) Summarily Dismissing Habeas Petition Without Prejudice for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK, Senior District Judge.

I. SUMMARY

On December 11, 2014, California state prisoner Shonta Jowarn Karim ("petitioner"), proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ("current petition") which challenges petitioner's 2001 conviction following a jury trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court ("the state case" or "state conviction").

Based on the record and the applicable law, the current petition will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner did not obtain authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ("the Circuit") to file a second-or-successive petition. Further, the Clerk will be directed to refer the petition to the Circuit pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3(a).[1]

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY[2]

A. State Proceedings

On June 25, 2001, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury found petitioner guilty of two counts of attempted second-degree robbery and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, related to a July 6, 2000 attempted robbery in Inglewood. As to both attempted second-degree robbery charges, the jury also found that petitioner personally used a firearm.

On September 6, 2001, petitioner waived his right to a trial on his prior convictions and admitted: (i) in 1992, he was convicted of first-degree robbery; (ii) in 1994, he was convicted of second-degree robbery; and (iii) both such convictions constituted serious felonies within the meaning of California Penal Code ยงยง 1170.12(a)-(d) and 667(a)(1). On the same date, the court sentenced petitioner to two concurrent terms of 35 years to life in state prison on the attempted-robbery charges. On direct appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed on September 19, 2002, the California Supreme Court denied petitioner's ensuing petition for review on December 11, 2002, and petitioner did not petition the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

On April 16, 2003, petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the California Supreme Court which was denied on December 17, 2003, and petitioner did not file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. On September 20, 2004, petitioner filed another state habeas petition in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on August 10, 2005, and petitioner did not file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Petitioner thereafter further sought habeas relief in the Los Angeles County Superior Court which recently denied relief. On July 23, 2014, petitioner again filed a state habeas petition in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on October 1, 2014, and petitioner again did not file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

B. First Federal Action

On May 14, 2004, petitioner filed the First Federal Petition. On August 18, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the First Federal Petition be denied with prejudice on its merits. On September 29, 2008, the District Judge issued an order adopting the R&R and dismissing the first federal action with prejudice. On October 1, 2008, judgment was entered accordingly. Petitioner did not appeal.

C. Current Petition

As noted above, on December 11, 2014, petitioner filed the current petition which again challenges the judgment in the State Case. The record does not reflect that petitioner has obtained authorization from the Ninth ...


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.