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.

Patkins v. Hatton

United States District Court, C.D. California

September 5, 2017

DAVID C. PATKINS, Petitioner,
v.
SHAWN HATTON, Warden, Respondent.

          ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION REFERRING THE PETITION TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS PURSUANT TO NINTH CIRCUIT RULE 22-3(A); DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

          DOLLY M. GEE United States District Judge

         DISMISSAL OF HABEAS PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

         On or about July 10, 2017, Petitioner David C. Patkins (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. 1.) The Petition challenges Petitioner's 2002 conviction for murder.

         The Court takes judicial notice of its files with respect to a prior habeas petition (the “Prior Petition”)[1] Petitioner filed in this Court on or about September 5, 2007, in Case No. CV 07-1124-DMG-FFM. The Court notes that the Prior Petition attacked the same conviction and sentence as the present Petition. On September 14, 2011, the Prior Petition was dismissed on the merits with prejudice.

         The pending Petition is governed by the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214) (“AEDPA”) which became effective April 24, 1996. Section 106 of the AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) to read, in pertinent part, as follows:

(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 unavailable; or
(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and
(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 factfinder 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 authorizing the district court to consider the application.

         The Prior Petition was denied on the merits. Therefore, because the Petition now pending challenges the same conviction as Petitioner's Prior Petition, it constitutes a second and/or successive petition within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). To the extent Petitioner seeks to pursue the same claims he previously asserted, the Petition is barred by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). To the extent Petitioner seeks to pursue claims not previously asserted, it was incumbent on him under § 2244(b)(3)(A) to secure an order from the Ninth Circuit authorizing the District Court to consider the Petition, prior to his filing of it in this Court. Petitioner's failure to secure such an order from the Ninth Circuit deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

         “REFERRAL” OF HABEAS CORPUS PETITION TO NINTH CIRCUIT

         Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3(a) states, in pertinent part, that “[i]f a second or successive petition or motion, or an application for authorization to file such a petition or motion, is mistakenly submitted to the district ...


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.