United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8, 2017, Petitioner, a prisoner in state custody proceeding
pro se, filed “A Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus Under Section 2254, or in the Alternative a Writ of
Error Coram Nobis, 18 U.S.C. 1651(a) (Docket Entry No. 1),
which the Court construes as Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (“Petition”). Petitioner challenges
his 2009 conviction (pursuant to a plea of no contest) for
sexual penetration by a foreign object and for forcible rape
and the five-year sentence he received for that conviction in
the Angeles County Superior Court (Case No. LA056220). The
Petition alleges the following grounds for federal habeas
relief: (1) The trial court failed to specify to Petitioner
that the registration requirement for a sex offender under
California Penal Code § 2009 was lifelong; and (2)
Petitioner's guilty plea was unintelligent and was based
on the ineffective assistance of counsel, because the trial
court and Petitioner's trial counsel failed to advise
Petitioner of the lifelong registration requirement.
(Petition at 1-19, Petitioner's Affidavit dated May 2,
2017 [2 pages]).
October 17, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he
challenged the same 2009 conviction. See Charles Eleri v.
James D. Hartley, CV 11-09169-BRO (AS); (Docket Entry
No. 1) (“the first prior habeas action”). On
August 7, 2014, the Court issued an Order and Judgment
denying that habeas petition with prejudice, in accordance
with the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.
(Id.; Docket Entry Nos. 61-62). On the same date,
the Court denied a certificate of appealability.
(Id.; Docket Entry No. 63). On January 15, 2015, the
Court denied a motion for relief from Judgment pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). (Id.; Docket Entry No. 70).
On June 15, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied
Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability.
(Id.; Docket Entry No. 71).
August 23, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 in which he challenged the same 2009
conviction. See Charles Eleri v. James D. Hartley,
CV 16-06328-BRO (AS); Docket Entry No. 1) (“the second
prior habeas action”). On August 29, 2016, the Court
issued an Order of Dismissal and Judgment dismissing that
habeas petition without prejudice as an unauthorized second
or successive petition. (Id.; Docket Entry Nos.
3-4). On September 15, 2016, the Court issued an Order
denying a motion for relief from Judgment pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2) and (b)(6). (Id.; Docket Entry
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”), enacted on April 24, 1996, provides in
pertinent part that:
(a) No circuit or district judge shall be required to
entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus to
inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment
of a court of the United States if it appears that the
legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or
court of the United States on a prior application for a writ
of habeas corpus, except as provided in §2255.
(b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas
corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a
prior application shall be dismissed.
(2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus
application under section 2254 that was not presented in a
prior application shall be dismissed unless--
(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule
of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on
collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have
been discovered previously through the exercise of due
(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in
light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for
constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would have
found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.
(3)(A) 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