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.

Bailey v. Sherman

United States District Court, C.D. California

June 25, 2015

STEVEN DWAYNE BAILEY, I, Petitioner,
v.
STU SHERMAN, Warden, Respondent.

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.

On June 9, 2015, Steven Dwayne Bailey, I ("Petitioner"), a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition"). (Docket No. 1.)

PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

In 2009, after a jury trial in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. FBA900010, Petitioner was convicted of three counts of sodomy with a child 10 years of age or younger (Cal. Penal Code § 288.7(a); Counts 1, 5, 6), three counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a child (Cal. Penal Code § 288(a); Counts 2, 8, 9), one count of attempted lewd and lascivious acts with a child (Cal. Penal Code §§ 664, 288(a); Count 4), and two counts of forcible sodomy (Cal. Penal Code § 286(c)(2); Counts 3, 7). (Petition at 2; Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("R&R"), filed on August 27, 2013, Bailey v. Gipson, Warden, Case No. EDCV 11-1513 ODW (JEM), at 3).[1] Petitioner was sentenced to 76 years to life in state prison. (Petition at 2; R&R at 3).

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on September 1, 2011, and a First Amended Petition on October 26, 2011, in this Court, Bailey v. Gipson, Warden, Case No. EDCV 11-1513 ODW (JEM) ("Prior Petition"), challenging his conviction and/or sentence in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. FBA900010. (R&R at 1-3). Respondent filed an Answer to the Prior Petition on October 24, 2012. Petitioner filed a Reply on November 5, 2012, and a Supplemental Reply on June 6, 2013. On August 27, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued his R&R, recommending that the Prior Petition be dismissed with prejudice on the merits. (R&R at 1-23). The Court accepted the R&R and dismissed the Prior Petition on October 15, 2013. (See Judgment, Bailey v. Gipson, Warden, Case No. EDCV 11-1513 ODW (JEM)).

On June 9, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant Petition. In the Petition, Petitioner challenges his conviction and/or sentence in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. FBA900010. (See Petition at 1-2).

DISCUSSION

The present Petition is governed by the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) to read, in pertinent part, as follows:

(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 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.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1)-(3)(A); see also Rule 9 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. In addition, Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts provides that if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the Petitioner is not ...


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.