United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
FERNANDO M. OLGUIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12, 2019, Jarvin O'Neal Nash (“Petitioner”),
a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed
a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State
Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(“Petition”). (Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner
challenges his 2005 conviction for attempted first degree
robbery and the resulting 25-years-to-life sentence in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court (No. FSB045154). The
Petition alleges numerous claims, including ineffective
assistance of trial counsel, ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel, insufficiency of the evidence,
prosecutorial misconduct, actual innocence, and the Superior
Court's abuse of discretion in not allowing Petitioner to
proceed with a successive habeas petition. (See
Petition at 6-10, 15, 20, 24, 28-59).
February 5, 2008, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the same conviction and
sentence. See Jarvin O'Neal Nash v. V.M.
Almager, No. EDCV 08-00149-MMM (VBK); Docket Entry No. 1
(“prior habeas action”). On October 30, 2009, the
district court issued an Order and Judgment denying that
habeas petition with prejudice, in accordance with the
findings and recommendations of the assigned Magistrate
Judge. (Id.; Docket Entry Nos. 17-19).
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
authorizing the district court to consider the application.
(B) A motion in the court of appeals for an order authorizing
the district court to consider a second or successive
application shall be determined by a ...