United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
AND ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
HONORABLE DALE S. FISCHER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20, 2016, petitioner Joseph Nichols
(“petitioner”), a California prisoner who is
proceeding pro se, formally filed a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Current Federal
Petition”) with multiple voluminous attachments (Pet.
Att.). The Current Federal Petition challenges
petitioner’s 1993 conviction and sentence in Los
Angeles County Superior Court Case No. PA007472 (“State
Case”), asserting thirty-three (33) grounds for relief.
(Petition at 2, 5-13; Pet. Att. A at i-44; Pet. Att. B at
A-35; Pet. Att. C at A-76).
on the record (including facts as to which this Court takes
judicial notice as detailed below) and the applicable law,
the Current Federal Petition and this action are dismissed
without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner
did not obtain the requisite authorization from the Court of
Appeals to file a successive petition. Further, the Clerk of
the Court is directed to refer the Current Federal Petition
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
(“Ninth Circuit”) pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule
8, 1993, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury convicted
petitioner of kidnapping for robbery, second degree robbery,
dissuading a witness by force or threat, and evading an
officer. The jury also found true allegations that petitioner
personally used a firearm in the commission of the foregoing
direct appeal, the California Court of Appeal struck a
personal firearm use enhancement and a prior conviction
enhancement, but affirmed the judgment in all other respects.
The California Supreme Court denied review on February 1,
thereafter sought, and was denied state habeas relief in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court, the California Court of
Appeal, and the California Supreme Court.
First Federal Action and First Ninth Circuit Action
November 15, 1999, petitioner formally filed the operative
first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus
(“First Federal Petition”) in the First Federal
Action, challenging the judgment in the State Case. On June
23, 2000, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Final Report
and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge,
recommending that the First Federal Action be dismissed with
prejudice because the First Federal Petition was time-barred.
On June 23, 2000, the assigned District Judge issued an Order
Adopting Final Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge and dismissed the First Federal Petition
with prejudice. On June 27, 2000, judgment was entered
6, 2000, petitioner filed a notice of appeal. On December 28,
2000, in the First Ninth Circuit Action, the Ninth Circuit
denied petitioner’s request for a certificate of
Second Federal Action and Second Ninth Circuit
26, 2006, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus (“Second Federal Petition”) in the Second
Federal Action, again challenging the judgment in the State
Case. On May 31, 2006, this Court summarily dismissed the
Second State Petition without prejudice as successive. ...