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.

Racz v. Borders

United States District Court, C.D. California

March 31, 2017

JOHN RACZ, Petitioner,
v.
DEAN BORDERS, Warden Respondent.

          ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

          JAMES V. SELNA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On March 29, 2017, John Racz (“Petitioner”), represented by counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. 1.) The Petition is the third habeas corpus petition that Petitioner has filed in this Court stemming from his 2007 state court conviction and sentence in Los Angeles County Superior Court, case no. BA320288.

         Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States district Courts, a habeas petition filed by a prisoner in state custody “must” be summarily dismissed “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court[.]” For the reasons set forth below, the Petition must be dismissed without prejudice as a successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

         I.

         BACKGROUND

         A. State Court Proceedings[1]

         On August 22, 2007, a jury convicted Petitioner of the first degree murder of his wife. (Dkt. 1 at 2.) Petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for 25 years to life. (Id.) Petitioner appealed, arguing insufficiency of the evidence, pretrial delay, confrontation clause violations, and the exclusion of relevant evidence. (Id. at 2-3.) The California Court of Appeal affirmed Petitioner's convicted on August 30, 2010. (Id. at 3.) The California Supreme Court denied further direct review on December 15, 2010. (Id.)

         As relevant here, Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the Los Angeles County Superior Court on June 29, 2015, claiming that he has discovered new evidence “indicating that the District Attorney of Los Angeles County had failed to turn over to the defense material that was required under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1983).” (Id. at 11.) The Petition was denied. Petitioner then raised the same claim in a habeas petition to the California Court of Appeal, which was denied on October 28, 2015. See Case no. B267771 (2015). On April 27, 2016, the California Supreme Court denied the petition without comment or citation to authority. See Case no. S231543.

         B. Prior Federal Habeas Petitions[2]

         As relevant here[3], on September 25, 2012, Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition, which was assigned case no. 2:12-cv-08270-JVS-RNB. The petition challenged Petitioner's 2007 conviction in Los Angeles County Superior Court, case no. BA320288. The petition raised four claims arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel, “cumulative, outrageous government misconduct, ” insufficiency of the evidence, and pretrial delay. (2:12-cv-08270-JVS-RNB, Dkt. 84 at 7 [Report and Recommendation].)

         On March 28, 2014, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be dismissed on the merits. (Id. at Dkt. 84.) On August 24, 2014, Petitioner filed objections. (Id. at Dkt. 88.) On September 10, 2014, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the petition with prejudice. (Id. at Dkt. 90, 91.) The Court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). (Id. at Dkt. 92.) Petitioner appealed on October 8, 2014. (Id. at Dkt. 94.) The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability on June 26, 2015. (Id. at Dkt. 100.) Petitioner also filed a petition for writ of mandamus, which the Ninth Circuit denied on February 26, 2015. (Dkt. 99.)

         II.

         DISCUSSION

         The instant Petition raises one claim for relief. Petitioner contends that the District Attorney failed to disclose “a crucial piece of evidence, ” violating the prosecutor's duty to ...


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.