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.

Gresham v. Warden CSP-LAC

United States District Court, C.D. California

June 17, 2016

Kevin Gresham
v.
Warden CSP-LAC

          Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED AS A SECOND AND SUCCESSIVE PETITION

          Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Petitioner Kevin Gresham ("Petitioner") has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, section 2254 ("Petition"). However, the Petition is a second and successive petition subject to dismissal. Thus, the Court orders Petitioner to show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed.

         II. BACKGROUND

         A. STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS

         On August 12, 2008, Petitioner pled no contest to second degree robbery in violation of California Penal Code section 211 and a firearm enhancement within the meaning of California Penal Code section 12022(a)(1) in the Los Angeles Superior Court. ECF Docket No. ("Dkt.") 1, Pet. at 47-48, 66-67.[1] Pursuant to his plea negotiation, Petitioner received a sentence of twelve years of imprisonment. Id. at 66-67.

         Petitioner fails to indicate whether he filed any direct appeal, petition for review, or state habeas petition. See Dkt. 1, Pet.

         B. FEDERAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

         On May 1, 2014, Petitioner constructively filed[2] a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, section 2254 ("2014 Petition") challenging his 2008 conviction and sentence. See EDCV 14-4453-MWF (KK) (C.D. Cal. filed Jun. 10, 2014).[3] In the 2014 Petition, Petitioner raised two claims: (1) the waiver used in his plea agreement contained "confusing language;" and (2) his sentence was "procedurally improper." Id. at Dkt. 1, Pet. at 5. On January 28, 2015, the Court entered judgment denying the 2014 Petition. Id. at Dkt. 24, Judgment.

         On May 26, 2016, Petitioner constructively filed the instant Petition challenging his 2008 conviction and sentence. See Dkt. 1, Pet. The Petition raises three claims: (1) the California Court of Appeal or California Supreme Court caused his petition for writ of mandate to be denied improperly; (2) "Petitioner is serving an illegal sentence;" and (3) the California Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus improperly. Id. at 4-26.

         II. DISCUSSION

         "A claim presented in a . . . successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). As for new claims, the United States Supreme Court has held:

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) established a stringent set of procedures that a prisoner "in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, " 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), must follow if he wishes to file a "second or successive" habeas corpus application challenging that custody, § 2244(b)(1). In pertinent part, before filing the application in the district court, a prisoner "shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." § 2244(b)(3)(A). A three-judge panel of the court of appeals may authorize the filing of the second or successive ...

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.