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.

Valentine v. Spearman

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 29, 2016

IVORY JOE VALENTINE, Petitioner,
v.
SPEARMAN, Warden, Respondent.

          Ivory Joe Valentine, Petitioner, Pro Se.

          Spearman, Respondent, represented by Attorney General, State of California.

          People of the State of California, Respondent, represented by Attorney General, State of California.

          ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS ACTIONS

          DOLLY M. GEE, District Judge.

         The Court summarily dismisses these habeas actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 and Local Rule 72-3.2.

         * * *

         In 1986, a state jury convicted Petitioner of murder and attempted manslaughter. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to 16 years to life in prison.

         In late 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.

         In 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 counsel.

         After 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.

         In his 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. § 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.

         * * *

         The Court concludes that both of Petitioner's actions are subject to summary dismissal. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; see also Rule 4 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts; Local Civil Rule 72-3.2.

         1. The 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. § 2244(b)(3); Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007) (dismissing successive petition for failure to obtain authorization from court of appeals). ...


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.