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.

Williams v. C. Pfeiffer

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 21, 2016

SHADALE LEWIS WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
v.
C. PFEIFFER, Warden, Respondent.

          KAREN E. SCOTT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

          TERRY J. HATTER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On July 8, 2016, Shadale Lewis Williams (hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner”) filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. 1.) The Petition is the fourth habeas corpus petition Petitioner has filed in this Court stemming from his 1997 state court conviction and sentence in Los Angeles County Superior Court (“LACSC”) Case No. BA133003.[1] (Id. at 1-2.[2])

         Concurrently, Petitioner filed documents entitled “Petition For Federal Review” and “Notice: Status Of Case On Verified Prison Release.” (Dkt. 2-3.[3])

         Under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, a habeas petition filed by a prisoner in state custody “must” be summarily dismissed “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court ..... ” Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. §2254. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition must be dismissed as a second or successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

         BACKGROUND

         On January 11, 1999, Petitioner filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court based on his 1997 conviction in LACSC Case No. BA133003, which was given Case No. CV99-207-MMM (Mc)[4] [hereinafter the “First Action”]. On February 24, 1999, Petitioner filed an amended petition in the First Action, which raised two claims for relief, alleging that: the evidence was insufficient to support Petitioner’s conviction; and the trial court violated Petitioner’s right to compulsory process by relying on the victim’s hearsay statement and failing to grant a continuance so that Petitioner could locate the victim and obtain her testimony. The First Action was resolved on the merits and habeas relief was denied by Judgment entered on July 20, 2000. Petitioner did not timely appeal.

         On April 6, 2005, over four years later, Petitioner again filed a Section 2254 habeas petition in this Court based on his conviction in LACSC Case No. BA133003, in Case No. CV05-2544-AHS (OP) (the “Second Action”). In the Second Action, Petitioner raised three grounds for relief stemming from the prosecutor’s alleged wrongful withholding of impeachment evidence. On February 5, 2007, Judgment was entered dismissing the Second Action, on the grounds that the Petition violated the second or successive petition prohibition set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Petitioner appealed. On September 4, 2007, the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability (Case No. 07-55452).

         While the Second Action was pending, on September 7, 2005, Petitioner filed an application in the Ninth Circuit, seeking leave to pursue a second or successive Section 2254 petition in this Court (Case No. 05-75206). On February 1, 2006, the Ninth Circuit denied the application.

         On September 20, 2007, Petitioner filed another Section 2254 habeas petition in this Court based on his 1997 conviction, in Case No. CV 07-6098-TJH (MAN) (the “Third Action”). In the Third Action, Petitioner raised four claims arising out of a restitution order entered by the state court in July 1997, in LACSC Case No. BA133033. On October 4, 2007, Judgment was entered dismissing the Third Action without prejudice, on the grounds that the Petition violated the second or successive petition prohibition set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Petitioner appealed. On June 24, 2008, the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability (Case No. 07-56735).

         The instant Petition raises three claims for relief alleging that there were cumulative errors at Petitioner’s trial (denial of Penal Code §§ 1054.1(e) and 1054.2(a) disclosures), that the government failed to correct a defective indictment and that Petitioner received ineffective assistance from his private investigator. (Dkt. 1 at 5-15.)

         The Petition now pending is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), which provides 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 ...

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.