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.

Favor v. Harper

United States District Court, C.D. California

January 20, 2017

BRANDON FAVOR, Petitioner,
v.
ANTHONY HARPER, Respondent.

          ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

          JESUS G. BERNAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On January 9, 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 appears to challenge his 2008 conviction and 2009 sentence in Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BA285265 (“State Court Conviction”). (Petition at 2-5.)[1]

         Petitioner 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 Conviction. The First Habeas Action was dismissed with prejudice on October 21, 2016.

         Petitioner has filed numerous habeas petitions since the First Habeas Action was dismissed, including this one, which challenge the State Court Conviction.

         As set forth more fully below, the instant Petition must be dismissed as an unauthorized successive habeas petition.

         PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

         On July 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.)[2]

         On May 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.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Duty to Screen

         This 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.

         II. Successive Petition

         The 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, as follows:

(b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior ...

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.