(HC)Ramirez v. Scholyer, No. 1:2024cv00323 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2024)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; ORDER directing Clerk of Court to assign District Judge 1 signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 5/7/2024. Referred to Judge Jennifer L. Thurston; Objections to F&R due within 30-Days. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 PETER TORRES RAMIREZ, Petitioner, 10 11 12 13 Case No. 1:24-cv-00323-EPG-HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. CHARLES SCHOLYER, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Respondent. 14 15 Petitioner Peter Torres Ramirez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 16 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the instant petition, Petitioner challenges 17 his 2015 convictions in the Fresno County Superior Court for attempted murder of a peace 18 officer and three counts of assault of a peace officer with a semiautomatic firearm. As Petitioner 19 has sought federal habeas relief with respect to the challenged convictions previously, the 20 undersigned recommends that the petition be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) as an 21 unauthorized successive petition. 22 I. 23 DISCUSSION 24 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 25 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 26 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 27 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 28 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 1 A federal court must dismiss a second or successive petition that raises the same grounds 1 2 as a prior petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). The court must also dismiss a second or successive 3 petition raising a new ground unless the petitioner can show that (1) the claim rests on a new, 4 retroactive, constitutional right, or (2) the factual basis of the claim was not previously 5 discoverable through due diligence, and these new facts establish by clear and convincing 6 evidence that but for the constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the 7 applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)–(B). However, it is not the 8 district court that decides whether a second or successive petition meets these requirements. Section 2244(b)(3)(A) provides: “Before a second or successive application permitted by 9 10 this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of 11 appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” In other words, a 12 petitioner must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before he can file a second or successive 13 petition in district court. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656–57 (1996). This Court must 14 dismiss any second or successive petition unless the Court of Appeals has given a petitioner 15 leave to file the petition because a district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a second or 16 successive petition. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007). In the instant petition, Petitioner challenges his 2015 convictions in the Fresno County 17 18 Superior Court for attempted murder of a peace officer and assault of a peace officer with a 19 semiautomatic firearm. (ECF No. 1 at 1.1) Petitioner previously sought federal habeas relief in 20 this Court with respect to the same convictions, and the petition was dismissed as untimely. See 21 Ramirez v. People, No. 1:22-cv-01060-AWI-SKO.2 The Court finds that the instant petition is “second or successive” under 28 U.S.C. 22 23 § 2244(b). See McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding “dismissal of a 24 first habeas petition for untimeliness presents a ‘permanent and incurable’ bar to federal review 25 of the underlying claims,” and thus renders subsequent petitions “second or successive”). As 26 Petitioner has already filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus regarding his 2015 Fresno County 27 1 Page numbers refer to ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page. The Court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 28 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 2 2 1 convictions, he cannot file another petition in this Court regarding the same convictions without 2 first obtaining permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Here, 3 Petitioner makes no showing that he has obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file his 4 successive petition. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s renewed 5 application for relief under § 2254 and must dismiss the petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. at 157. 6 II. 7 RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER 8 Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 9 habeas corpus be DISMISSED as an unauthorized successive petition. 10 Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to assign a District Court Judge to the 11 present matter. 12 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 13 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 14 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 15 THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 16 written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 17 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 18 United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 20 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 21 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 7, 2024 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.