Watkins v. Pickett
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — On January 9, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition for 24 Writ of Habeas Corpus in case number 07-cv-0196-W-POR.1 In that petition, Petitioner 25 26 1 In the petition filed January 9, 2007, Petitioner’s name appears on the docket as “David Dion Watkins.” 27 While in the current Petition, Petitioner lists his name as “David Dean Watkins,” both Petitions include 28 Petitioner’s CDCR inmate number, V-04739, and reference the same July 8, 2003 San Di
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a federal habeas corpus petition filed by a state prisoner challenging a 2003 conviction. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice because it was a successive petition filed without prior authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and denied a certificate of appealability.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the habeas petition without prejudice“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice to Petitioner filing a petition in this court if he obtains the necessary order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the gatekeeping provision of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The record establishes that the petitioner previously challenged the same conviction in a prior federal habeas petition (07-cv-0196-W-POR) which was denied on the merits and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), a successive petition may not be filed in district court unless the petitioner first obtains authorization from the court of appeals. The order notes there is no indication such authorization was obtained. Therefore, the dismissal is procedurally required. |
Denial of certificate of appealability“As such, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), requiring a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Since the dismissal was based on a clear procedural bar (lack of appellate authorization for a successive petition) rather than a substantive constitutional claim, and the court found the assessment not debatable by reasonable jurists, the denial is consistent with the law. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the petition as successive based on the prior case history, applies the statutory gatekeeping requirement of § 2244(b)(3)(A), and cites appropriate Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority to support the procedural bar. The denial of the COA is also supported by the procedural nature of the dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID DEAN WATKINS, Case No. 3:20-cv-0979-BAS-JLB 12 Plaintiff, SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF 13 v. SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 14 J. PICKETT, Acting Warden, § 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER 15 Defendant. PROVISION 16 17 Petitioner David Dean Watkins has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons discussed below, this case is summarily 19 dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 20 PETITION BARRED BY GATEKEEPER PROVISION 21 The instant Petition is not the first Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Petitioner 22 has submitted to this Court challenging his July 8, 2003 conviction in San Diego County 23 Superior Court Case No. SCD1163340. On January 9, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition for 24 Writ of Habeas Corpus in case number 07-cv-0196-W-POR.1 In that petition, Petitioner 25 26 1 In the petition filed January 9, 2007, Petitioner’s name appears on the docket as “David Dion Watkins.” 27 While in the current Petition, Petitioner lists his name as “David Dean Watkins,” both Petitions include 28 Petitioner’s CDCR inmate number, V-04739, and reference the same July 8, 2003 San Diego County 1 challenged his July 8, 2003 conviction as well. On June 19, 2009, this Court denied the 2 petition on the merits. See Watkins v. Scribner, 07-cv-0196-W-POR (ECF No. 27). 3 Petitioner appealed that determination. (See ECF No. 29.) On October 20, 2010, the Ninth 4 Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision. See Watkins v. Small, No. 5 08-56363 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2010); (see ECF No. 41). 6 Petitioner is now seeking to challenge the same conviction he challenged in his prior 7 federal habeas petition. Unless a petitioner shows he or she has obtained an Order from 8 the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider a successive 9 petition, the petition may not be filed in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); 10 see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007) (holding a petition is successive where 11 it challenges “the same custody imposed by the same judgment of a state court” as a prior 12 petition). A successive application is permissible “only if it rests on a new rule of 13 constitutional law, facts that were previously unavailable, or facts that would be sufficient 14 to show constitutional error in the petitioner’s conviction.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). “Even 15 if a petitioner can demonstrate that he qualifies for one of these exceptions, he must seek 16 authorization from the court of appeals before filing his new petition with the district 17 court.” Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, there is no indication 18 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Petitioner leave to file a successive petition. 19 CONCLUSION 20 Because there is no indication Petitioner has obtained permission from the Ninth 21 Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive petition, this Court cannot consider his 22 Petition. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice to Petitioner 23 filing a petition in this court if he obtains the necessary order from the Ninth Circuit Court 24 of Appeals. 25 Further, Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a 26 constitutional right,” and reasonable jurists would not find debatable this Court’s 27 assessment of his claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). As such, a certificate of appealability 28 is DENIED. See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 11(a) (requiring the district court 1 ||that issues an order denying a habeas petition to either grant or deny a certificate of 2 appealability). For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach a blank Ninth 3 || Circuit Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition. 4 IT ISSO ORDERED. 5 ‘ fl ' 6 || DATED: May 28, 2020 ( pill Aybar. 6 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28