Garcia v. United States

District Court, S.D. California · 3:19-cv-01353 · 2020-05-15 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Roger T. Benitez (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T23:44Z · confidence high

The court considered a second motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence filed by a federal prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction because the movant failed to obtain the required certification from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and it denied a certificate of appealability.

What the court decided	The model
Denial of the second motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 “Garcia has not obtained the necessary approval from the Court of Appeals to prosecute his second motion. Therefore, the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence is DENIED.”	agree with court The court correctly applied the statutory requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), which mandates that a district court must deny a second or successive habeas motion unless the court of appeals first certifies that the motion relies on a new rule of constitutional law or presents new evidence. The order recites that the movant did not obtain this necessary approval, making the denial the only legally available outcome.
Denial of a certificate of appealability (COA) “This Court finds that Movant has not made the necessary showing. A certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED.”	agree with court The court applied the standard from Miller-El v. Cockrell, requiring a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the merits of the successive petition due to the failure to obtain appellate certification, the movant could not make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation on the merits. The denial is procedurally consistent with the dismissal of the underlying motion.

What the court decided

The model

Denial of the second motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

“Garcia has not obtained the necessary approval from the Court of Appeals to prosecute his second motion. Therefore, the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence is DENIED.”

agree with court
The court correctly applied the statutory requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), which mandates that a district court must deny a second or successive habeas motion unless the court of appeals first certifies that the motion relies on a new rule of constitutional law or presents new evidence. The order recites that the movant did not obtain this necessary approval, making the denial the only legally available outcome.

Denial of a certificate of appealability (COA)

“This Court finds that Movant has not made the necessary showing. A certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED.”

agree with court
The court applied the standard from Miller-El v. Cockrell, requiring a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the merits of the successive petition due to the failure to obtain appellate certification, the movant could not make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation on the merits. The denial is procedurally consistent with the dismissal of the underlying motion.

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the jurisdictional bar imposed by AEDPA on successive habeas petitions and applies the correct standard for issuing a certificate of appealability. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CARLOS ALBERTO GARCIA, Case No.: 19-cv1353-BEN 12-cr-2999-BEN 7 Movant, 8 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CORRECT A SENTENCE UNDER 10 Respondent. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 11 12 Movant Carlos Alberto Garcia filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a 13 Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on March 7, 2014. Docket No. 41. The motion 14 was denied on November 3, 2015. Order, Docket No. 47. On July 19, 2019, Garcia filed 15 a second motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Docket No. 49. 16 Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a 17 district court has only limited authority to hear a claim presented in a second or 18 successive habeas motion. “The court must deny a second or successive motion unless 19 the court of appeals first certifies that the motion relies on a new rule of constitutional 20 law that is retroactively applicable or presents new evidence that meets the criteria set 21 forth in § 2255(h).” Mitchell v. United States, No. 18-17031, 2020 WL 2078991, at *6 22 (9th Cir. Apr. 30, 2020) (citing Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 149 (2007); Gonzalez v. 23 Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531–32 (2005)). 24 Garcia has not obtained the necessary approval from the Court of Appeals to 25 prosecute his second motion. Therefore, the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct 26 Sentence is DENIED. 27 A court may issue a certificate of appealability where the movant has made a 28 “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” and reasonable jurists could 1 || debate whether the motion should have been resolved differently, or that the issues 2 || presented deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 3 335 (2003). This Court finds that Movant has not made the necessary showing. A 4 certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. | ly v “ a 6 || Dated: May 15, 2020 4 HON . ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Court Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28