Opinion
Case No. CV 19-10866 CJC (MRW)
02-12-2020
RYANT PRATT, Petitioner, v. JIM ROBERTSON, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
The Court summarily dismisses this action - Petitioner's third in this district court - pursuant to the successive habeas petition rule under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2243 and 2244.
* * *
1. Petitioner is currently serving a life term in state prison based on his 1997 murder conviction. He seeks to challenge the imposition of his sentence under California's Three Strikes law.
2. Petitioner previously sought habeas relief in this Court related to that conviction and sentence on two occasions. The Court dismissed Petitioner's 2013 habeas action as untimely. Pratt v. Grounds, No. CV 13-7806 R (MRW) (C.D. Cal.). Petitioner's 2016 habeas action was dismissed as successive and untimely. Pratt v. Brown, No. CV 16-5322 R (MRW) (C.D. Cal.). Petitioner did not seek federal appellate review of either dismissal.
3. After Petitioner commenced the current action, Magistrate Judge Wilner issued an order informing Petitioner (as in Petitioner's previous action) of the operation of the successive petition rule under AEDPA. (Docket # 4.) The Court reminded Petitioner of his obligation to obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit before filing a new habeas action. The Court offered Petitioner an opportunity to explain why the case should not be dismissed as successive.
4. Petitioner submitted a brief response. (Docket # 5.) Petitioner failed to address the successive petition issue. Instead, he presented a cursory argument that the state court improperly sentenced him 20+ years ago because one of his prior offenses / strikes was "not defined as a 'serious [or] violent felony [ ] at the time of sentencing (1997)." (Docket # 5 at 2,)
* * *
5. If it "appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled" to habeas relief, a court may dismiss a habeas action without ordering service on the responding party. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; see also Rule 4 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts (petition may be summarily dismissed if petitioner plainly not entitled to relief); Local Civil Rule 72-3.2 (magistrate judge may submit proposed order for summary dismissal to district judge "if it plainly appears from the face of the petition [ ] that the petitioner is not entitled to relief").
6. Under federal law, a state prisoner is generally required to present all constitutional challenges to a state conviction in a single federal action. "Before a second or successive [habeas petition] 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." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
7. A prisoner must obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals to pursue such a successive habeas petition before the new petition may be filed in district court. Id.; Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 156 (2007) (district court without jurisdiction to consider successive habeas action when prisoner "neither sought nor received authorization from the Court of Appeals before filing").
8. "If the petition is second or successive, then the district court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss the petition unless and until the court of appeals grants an application to file it." Brown v. Muniz, 889 F.3d 661, 667, 676 (9th Cir. 2018) ("petitioner's burden is higher" under statute to bring successive habeas action); Prince v. Lizzaraga, 733 F. App'x 382, 384 (9th Cir. 2018) (prisoner "must first apply to this court for permission to have his petition heard in the district court").
9. A dismissal of a habeas action "for failure to comply with the statute of limitations renders subsequent petitions second or successive for purposes of the AEDPA," thereby requiring appellate court permission for the new filing. McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009); Remsen v. Attorney General, 471 F. App'x 571 (9th Cir. 2012) (same).
* * *
10. Petitioner's current habeas action is subject to summary dismissal. The petition challenges the sentence in the same murder conviction that was the subject of his earlier habeas actions. The first action (CV 13-7806) was denied as untimely. Petitioner's next habeas action (CV 16-5322) was dismissed as untimely and successive.
11. Those defects make the current action successive, too. McNabb, 576 F.3d at 1030. Petitioner presents no proof that he asked for or received permission from the Ninth Circuit to pursue another successive action. On this basis, the current petition is subject to summary dismissal. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); Brown, 889 F.3d at 667; Prince, 733 F. App'x at 384.
* * *
Because the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's claim, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice as successive.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 12, 2020
/s/_________
HON. CORMAC J. CARNEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Presented by: /s/_________
HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE