United States District Court, C.D. California
Joe Valentine, Petitioner, Pro Se.
Spearman, Respondent, represented by Attorney General, State
of the State of California, Respondent, represented by
Attorney General, State of California.
ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS ACTIONS
M. GEE, District Judge.
Court summarily dismisses these habeas actions pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Â§ 2244 and Local Rule 72-3.2.
* * *
1986, a state jury convicted Petitioner of murder and
attempted manslaughter. The trial court sentenced Petitioner
to 16 years to life in prison.
2015, Petitioner filed a habeas action seeking review of his
conviction. Valentine v. Spearman, SA CV 15-2177 DMG (MRW)
(C.D. Cal.) ("Valentine I"). Petitioner alleged
that the state trial court failed to conduct a proper
preliminary hearing. Petitioner was unable to demonstrate.
however, how his federal habeas action was timely under
AEDPA. After considering Petitioner's supplemental
materials, the Court summarily dismissed Valentine I with
prejudice as untimely.
short order, Petitioner filed two additional federal actions
- the pending cases - to challenge his murder conviction
again. Valentine v. Spearman, SA CV 16-26 DMG (MRW) (C.D.
Cal.) ("Valentine II"); Valentine v. Spearman, SA
CV 16-225 DMG (MRW) (C.D. Cal.) ("Valentine III").
As with Valentine I, the petitions in Valentine II and
Valentine III each raise Petitioner's preliminary hearing
complaint and a related argument of ineffective assistance of
reviewing Petitioner's submissions, Magistrate Judge
Wilner informed Petitioner of the summary dismissal of
Valentine I. Judge Wilner also gave Petitioner an opportunity
to be heard as to why Valentine II and Valentine III should
not be summarily dismissed.
responses (Valentine II, Docket # 9; Valentine III, Docket #
16), Petitioner offers a variety of legal and equitable
reasons for this Court to consider challenges to his
30-year-old conviction. They include: Petitioner's
reliance on the terms of 28 U.S.C. Â§ 2255 (which is
applicable to individuals convicted of federal crimes, not
state ones like Petitioner); his claim that he only recently
"realized his lawyer's ineffectiveness"; and an
argument that all aspects of his recent denial of parole
relate back to defects in the "trial record"
derived from the failure to conduct a preliminary hearing.
* * *
Court concludes that both of Petitioner's actions are
subject to summary dismissal. 28 U.S.C. Â§ 2243; see also Rule
4 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States
District Courts; Local Civil Rule 72-3.2.
Court dismissed Valentine I with prejudice as untimely under
AEDPA. Valentine II and Valentine III are each
"successive" petitions asserting similar claims.
Neither action is accompanied by a certificate of
authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 28
U.S.C. Â§ 2244(b)(3); Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147
(2007) (dismissing successive petition for failure to obtain
authorization from court of appeals). ...