United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
V. SELNA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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. §
State Court Proceedings
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.)
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
Prior Federal Habeas
relevant here, 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
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.)
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 ...