United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
G. BERNAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
December 27, 2016, Brandon Favor (“Petitioner”),
a prisoner in state custody proceeding pro se, filed
a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (“Petition”), in which he challenges
his 2008 conviction and 2009 sentence in Los Angeles County
Superior Court Case No. BA285265 (“State Court
Conviction”). (Petition at 2.)
previously filed a federal habeas petition in this Court,
Brandon Alexander Favor v. Daniel Paramo, Case
number CV 14-4441-JGB (JEM) (“First Habeas
Action”), challenging the State Court Decision. The
First Habeas Action was dismissed with prejudice on October
has filed several habeas petitions since the First Habeas
Action was dismissed, including this one, which challenge the
State Court Decision.
forth more fully below, the instant Petition must be
dismissed as an unauthorized successive habeas petition.
30, 2008, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury found
Petitioner guilty of one count of first degree murder (Cal.
Penal Code § 187(a)), two counts of attempted murder
(Cal. Penal Code §§ 664/187(a)), and two counts of
second degree robbery (Cal. Penal Code § 211). The jury
further found true the special circumstance allegation that
the murder was committed in the course of a robbery (Cal.
Penal Code § 190.2(a)(17)(A)); the allegation that each
attempted murder was committed willfully, deliberately, and
with premeditation (Cal. Penal Code § 664(a)), and the
allegation as to each count that a principal was armed with a
firearm in the commission of the offense (Cal. Penal Code
§ 12022(a)(1)). (2 Clerk's Transcript
[“CT”] at 421-25; 6 Reporter's Transcript
[“RT”] at 1587-91.) On April 7, 2009, the trial
court sentenced Petitioner to state prison f or an aggregate
term of life without the possibility of parole. (2 CT at
467-73; 8 RT at 3614-18.)
30, 2014, Petitioner filed in the First Habeas Action in this
Court. On October 21, 2016, the First Habeas Action was
denied on the merits and dismissed with prejudice.
I. Duty to Screen
Court has a duty to screen habeas corpus petitions.
See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts, Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes. Rule
4 requires a district court to examine a habeas corpus
petition, and if it plainly appears from the face of the
petition and any annexed exhibits that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief, the judge shall make an order for summary
dismissal of the petition. Id.; see also
Local Rule 72-3.2.
Petition must be dismissed as a successive petition over
which this Court lacks jurisdiction. The Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”)
amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) to read, in pertinent part,
(b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas
corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a