Kenneth Lewis v. RJD
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 4 Havi
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a state prisoner's Second Amended Petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed after a prior dismissal. The court declined to reopen the case, dismissed the petition without leave to amend, and denied a certificate of appealability.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Decline to reopen the case and dismiss the Second Amended Petition without further leave to amend“Accordingly, the case remains DISMISSED without further leave to amend.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the summary dismissal standard under Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. The order recites that the petitioner failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement and failed to state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) by not alleging a constitutional violation, only seeking 'resentencing.' It also noted the failure to allege exhaustion of state remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c). These are valid grounds for summary dismissal of a habeas petition. |
Deny a certificate of appealability“Furthermore, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find this Court’s dismissal debatable.” | agree with court The court applied the correct standard from Miller-El v. Cockrell, requiring a showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment debatable. Given the procedural and substantive deficiencies identified (failure to pay fee, failure to state a claim, failure to exhaust), the denial is supported by the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural and substantive deficiencies in the petitioner's Second Amended Petition. It cites the appropriate statutes and case law for the requirements of a cognizable habeas claim, exhaustion of state remedies, and the standard for summary dismissal. The denial of the certificate of appealability is supported by the cited standard and the facts recited. The reasoning is complete and directly addresses the motion before the court.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH LEWIS, Case No.: 25-CV-2209 JLS (VET)
12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS 13 v. ACTION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 14 APPEALABILITY 15 RJD, (ECF No. 8) 16 Respondent. 17 18 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Kenneth Lewis’s Second Amended Petition 19 (“SAP,” ECF No. 8). On August 21, 2025, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 20 filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See ECF No. 1. 21 On September 4, 2025, the Court dismissed the action because Petitioner failed to satisfy 22 the filing fee requirement and failed to state a cognizable claim. See ECF No. 2. The Court 23 notified Petitioner that to have his case reopened, he must both: (1) either pay the filing fee 24 or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”); and (2) file an amended petition 25 by October 17, 2025. Id. at 4. 26 On September 25, 2025, Petitioner filed a Motion to Proceed IFP (“IFP Mot.,” ECF 27 4) and a First Amended Petition (“FAP,” ECF No. 3). On October 9, 2025, the Court 1 ECF No. 5. Judgment was entered on October 14, 2025. ECF No. 6. Despite the Court 2 declining to grant him leave to amend, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition on 3 November 13, 2025. See generally Docket. 4 Having reviewed the SAP, the Court declines to reopen the case. First, Petitioner 5 has yet to satisfy the filing fee requirement. And even if Petitioner had paid the fee, the 6 SAP suffers from the same pleading deficiencies as his previous petitions. Petitioner again 7 fails to raise a cognizable claim on federal habeas. He states only that he seeks 8 “resentencing,” but alleges no “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the 9 United States” as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). See Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 10 714, 719 (9th Cir. 1991). In addition, Petitioner has again failed to allege exhaustion of 11 state judicial remedies, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c). See Granberry v. Greer, 12 481 U.S. 129, 133–34 (1987). Therefore, even if Petitioner had satisfied the filing fee 13 requirement, the SAP would be subject to dismissal. See Rules Governing Section 2254 14 Proceedings, Rule 4(b), 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (stating courts may summarily dismiss a habeas 15 petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that 16 the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court”). As such, the Court declines to 17 reopen the case. 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / Accordingly, the case remains DISMISSED without further leave to amend. Furthermore, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find this Court’s dismissal debatable. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003) (stating a prisoner seeking a certificate of appealability must demonstrate jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further). The Clerk of the Court SHALL close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 11, 2025 . tt pen Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge