United States District Court, C.D. California
OPINION AND ORDER ON SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE
M. Gee United States District Judge
Petitioner previously challenged the same underlying
state-court judgment in a prior habeas action that the Court
dismissed with prejudice, and because Petitioner lacks Ninth
Circuit authorization to file a second or successive habeas
petition, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter.
to Fed.R.Evid. 201, the Court takes judicial notice of the
records in Petitioner's prior federal habeas corpus
action in the Central District of California.
2, 1996, an Orange County Superior Court jury found
Petitioner guilty of two counts of second-degree robbery
(counts 1 and 2), two counts of assault with a firearm
(counts 4 and 5), and one count of being a felon in
possession of a firearm (count 6). The jury found true
firearm enhancement allegations and also found true that
Petitioner suffered prior felony convictions. In 1997,
Petitioner was sentenced to 92-years-to-life in prison under
California's Three Strikes law. (Case No. 95CF2440.) The
California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on January
28, 1999. (Case No. G020389.) On April 14, 1999, the
California Supreme Court summarily denied a petition for
review. (Case No. S076995.)
April 13, 2000, an Orange County Superior Court issued a
reasoned decision denying a state habeas petition. On May 25,
2000, the California Court of Appeal summarily denied a state
habeas petition. On November 29, 2000, the California Supreme
Court denied a state habeas petition. (Case No.
Bush I:CV 01-00264
March 2, 2001, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus by a Person in State Custody ("Petition"),
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, before this Court in
Bush v. Calderon, No. SACV 01-00264-AHS (JWJ) (CD.
Cal. Mar. 2, 2001) ("Bush I"). On April
23, 2001, Petitioner filed a first amended petition raising
the following five grounds for relief: (1) the trial court
erred in deciding that Petitioner's 1989 convictions
constituted prior serious or violent felony offenses under
California's Three Strikes law; (2) ineffective
assistance of trial counsel based on failure to file a motion
to strike prior 1989 convictions; (3) ineffective assistance
of trial counsel based on failure to file a motion to dismiss
robbery charges for insufficient evidence; (4) prosecution
violated fourteenth amendment rights by offering witnesses
leniency in exchange for testimony and ineffective assistance
of counsel based on failure to challenge prosecutorial
leniency; and (5) the trial court erroneously imposed
full-term consecutive sentences for firearm use enhancements
pursuant to Cal. Penal Code Section 12022.5. (Bush
I, Dkt. No. 32 at 5.)
24, 2002, the magistrate judge issued a Report finding that
Petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief on any of the
grounds raised and recommended that judgment be entered
denying the first amended petition on the merits and
dismissing the action with prejudice. (Id., Dkt. No.
32 at 6-22.)
September 10, 2002, the district judge entered an order
accepting the Report's findings and recommendations and
entered judgment dismissing the action with prejudice.
(Id., Dkt. Nos. 34-35.) On November 13, 2002, the
district judge denied a Certificate of Appealability.
(Id., Dkt. No. 40.) On May 14, 2003, the Ninth
Circuit denied a request for a Certificate of Appealability.
(Id., Dkt. Nos. 44-45; Case No. 02-56945.)
State Habeas Petitions Filed on Collateral
California Court of Appeal summarily denied state habeas
petitions on November 13, 2015, September 15, 2016, March 15,
2018, and September 13, 2018.
to Petitioner, an Orange County Superior Court denied a state
habeas petition on August 8, 2018 in case ...