United States District Court, C.D. California
GARY D. PEOPLES, Petitioner,
OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS (SUCCESSIVE PETITION)
STEPHEN V. WLSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
February 9, 2017, Petitioner, a state inmate, filed a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 in the Eastern District of California. That court
transferred the action to this district, for he challenges a
Los Angeles County conviction. Specifically, Petitioner
challenges his 2009 conviction of robbery and other crimes,
resulting in a 15 year prison sentence in 2010. Because he
previously challenged the same underlying state-court
judgment here in a habeas action that the Court dismissed
with prejudice, and because he lacks Ninth Circuit
authorization for another such challenge, the Court lacks
jurisdiction over the new petition.
to Fed.R.Evid. 201, the Court takes judicial notice of the
records in Petitioner's prior federal habeas corpus
action in the Central District, as well as the records of the
state trial and appellate courts and the United States
October 1, 2009, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury
convicted Petitioner of robbery and other crimes. On July 17,
2010, he was sentenced to prison for 15 years. (Petition at
12, 2012, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the
judgment as modified to reflect a fee and assessment.
People v. Peoples, No. B226204, 2012 Cal.App. Unpub.
LEXIS 4360, *14 (2012). The California Supreme Court denied
the petition for review on August 22, 2012. People v.
Peoples, 2012 Cal. LEXIS 8161 (2012).
February 4, 2014, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in Los
Angeles County Superior Court, which denied relief by order
dated March 10, 2014. (Petition in Peoples v.
Warden, No. CV 16-2123-SVW (AGR) (“Peoples
I”) at 3-4, 15.) On or about March 30, 2015,
Petitioner filed a second habeas petition in that court,
which denied the petition by order filed on April 7, 2015.
(Petition in Peoples I at 16-17.)
August 4, 2015, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the
California Court of Appeal, which summarily denied relief on
August 12, 2015. In re Peoples, Case No. B265871,
Dist=2&docid=2116436&docno=B265871. On September
21, 2015, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the
California Supreme Court, which denied relief on December 16,
2015. See In re Peoples, Case No. S229420,
February 14, 2016, Petitioner constructively filed a habeas
petition in this court in Peoples I.On November
22, 2016, the Court accepted the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation and entered Judgment dismissing Peoples
I with prejudice as untimely.
Petition was filed after enactment of the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”).
Therefore, the Court applies the AEDPA in reviewing the
Petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997).
AEDPA provides, in pertinent part: “Before a second or
successive application permitted by this section is filed in
the district court, the applicant shall move in the
appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the
district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(A). A district court does not have
jurisdiction to consider a “second or successive”
petition absent authorization from the Ninth Circuit.
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007);
Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir.
2001) (“When the AEDPA is in play, the district court