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.

Peoples v. Spearman

United States District Court, C.D. California

March 16, 2017

GARY D. PEOPLES, Petitioner,
v.
SPEARMAN, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (SUCCESSIVE PETITION)

          STEPHEN V. WLSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On 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.

         I.

         PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Pursuant 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 Supreme Court.

         On 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 2.)[1]

         On June 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).

         On 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.)

         On 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, available at http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm? 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, available at http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0 &docid=2 120781&docno=S229420.

         On February 14, 2016, Petitioner constructively filed a habeas petition in this court in Peoples I.[2]On November 22, 2016, the Court accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and entered Judgment dismissing Peoples I with prejudice as untimely.

         II.

         DISCUSSION

         The 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).

         The 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 ...


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.