Pulley v. Paramo
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se state prisoner's motion to reopen proceedings in a closed habeas corpus case, which the court construed as a second or successive petition. The court denied the motion, dismissed the petition, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Reopen Proceedings denied“For those reasons stated in the Order, Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED, and this second or successive petition is DISMISSED.” | agree with court The court correctly identified the motion as a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) because it repeated arguments previously rejected. The court relied on its prior order (ECF No. 69) for the substantive reasons, which is procedurally appropriate when the new filing is identical to a previously denied successive petition. |
Certificate of Appealability denied“A certificate of appealability will not issue. Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), which is the correct standard for determining whether to issue a COA in a habeas case. Given the repetitive nature of the claims and the prior denial, the conclusion that reasonable jurists would not find the claims debatable is supported by the record described in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly identifies the motion as a successive petition, relies on the prior order for substantive grounds, and applies the correct standard for the certificate of appealability. It does not skip any necessary arguments given the repetitive nature of the filing.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT G. PULLEY, Case No.: 14-CV-2034 JLS (MDD)
12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 13 v. MOTION TO REOPEN PROCEEDINGS 14 DANIEL PARAMO, Warden; and KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney 15 (ECF No. 71) General, 16 Respondents. 17 18 This closed federal habeas corpus action was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by pro se 19 state prisoner Robert G. Pulley. The Court denied the Petition and entered judgment in 20 favor of Respondents on November 14, 2016. ECF Nos. 54, 55. Petitioner filed multiple 21 appeals in this matter, see ECF Nos. 56, 57, 63, all of which were denied or dismissed as 22 duplicative, see ECF Nos. 61, 65, 66. Petitioner filed a post-judgment motion on June 2, 23 2021, ECF No. 68, which the Court construed as a second or successive habeas petition 24 and subsequently denied (the “Order”), ECF No. 69. The present Motion, which Petitioner 25 titled “Motion to Reopen Proceedings,” followed. ECF No. 71. 26 The present Motion repeats the same arguments previously rejected by the Court as 27 a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Compare ECF No. 68 at 28 23–24 (“[T]he district court fail[ed] to properly address and properly consider . . . new 1 ineffective assistance of counsel claims containing newly presented exculpatory evidence 2 || counsel withheld from the jury[.]’”), with ECF No. 71 at 14-15 (“[ T]he district court fail[ed] 3 properly address and properly consider . . . new ineffective assistance of counsel claims 4 containing newly presented exculpatory evidence counsel withheld from the jury[.]’). For 5 reasons articulated in the Order, the Court finds this Motion is also a second or 6 || successive petition. See ECF No. 69. For those reasons stated in the Order, Petitioner’s 7 || Motion is DENIED, and this second or successive petition is DISMISSED. 8 A certificate of appealability will not issue. Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of 9 ||reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 10 || constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district 11 |}court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 12 || The judgment and the order dismissing the Petition remain in effect. This case remains 13 closed. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: April 5, 2022 . tt f te 16 on. Janis L. Sammartino 7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28