• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
RICHARD I. FINE,)No. CV 09-7943-JFW(CW))Petitioner,)ORDER DISMISSING PETITION)FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUSv.))U.S. DISTRICT COURT, et al.,))Respondents,) ______________________________)For reasons stated below, this petition is summarily dismissed.
BACKGROUND
The pro se petitioner, Richard I. Fine, is in the custody of theSheriff of Los Angeles County under a contempt judgment issued March4, 2009, by the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, in CaseNo. BS109420. Petitioner previously sought to challenge that custodyin a petition for writ of habeas corpus, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, inthis court, in Case No. CV 09-1914-JFW(CW). That prior petition wasdenied and dismissed with prejudice in a judgment entered June 29,2009. Petitioner’s appeal of that denial is pending before the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Case No. 09-56073.
Case 2:09-cv-07943-JFW-CW Document 3 Filed 11/05/2009 Page 1 of 4
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
1
Petitioner has not offered any basis for determining that hispetition, ostensibly under § 2241, is not limited by § 2254.
2
The present petition is simply an attempt to re-argue issuesPetitioner raised in his prior petition. Furthermore, althoughPetitioner lists this district court as a respondent in the presentpetition, he is not in the custody of this court. On the contrary,this court has simply declined to order him released from the custodyof the Sheriff of Los Angeles County.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
If it appears from the face of a habeas petition and any attachedexhibits that a petitioner is not entitled to relief in the districtcourt the petition may be summarily dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243;Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rule 1(b)(rules also apply to habeas petitions not under § 2254), Rule 4(summary dismissal); Local Rules Governing Duties of Magistrate Judges(C.D. Cal.), Rule 3.2.2 (summary dismissal by presented order).
DISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 a federal district court has jurisdictionto consider an application for habeas corpus relief which alleges thatthe petitioner “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or lawsor treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). However,“the authority of the federal courts to grant habeas relief to stateprisoners under § 2241 is limited by 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Greenawalt v.Stewart, 105 F.3d 1287, 1287 (9th Cir. 1997)(per curiam)(citing Felkerv. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 662, 116 S. Ct. 2333, 135 L. Ed. 2d 827(1996).
1
Petitioner is in custody pursuant to a state court judgment,and he is seeking to challenge the legality of that custody.Therefore, even if he seeks to bring his petition under 28 U.S.C.
Case 2:09-cv-07943-JFW-CW Document 3 Filed 11/05/2009 Page 2 of 4
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
2
There are exceptions, under which a new petition is notsubject to dismissal as successive (for example, if a prior petitionwas dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust stateremedies, or if a new petition challenges parole decisions that couldnot have been addressed in a prior petition), but none of theseexceptions apply in the present case.
3
§ 2241, review is limited by the law applying to petitions under 28U.S.C. § 2254. Felker, 518 U.S. at 662. For example, a stateprisoner may not use an application under § 2241 to evade thelimitations on successive petitions that apply to petitions broughtunder § 2254. Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1287-88.A new habeas petition which challenges the same state courtjudgment addressed in one or more prior petitions, is a second orsuccessive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (a)-(b).
2
A federaldistrict court may not consider a second or successive petition unlessthe petitioner has first obtained an order from the proper federalcircuit court of appeals authorizing the district court to review thenew petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (A). The court of appealsmay only authorize review of a second or successive petition in thedistrict court if the petitioner “makes a prima facie showing [to thecourt of appeals] that the application satisfies the requirements of”28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C); Felker v. Turpin,518 U.S. 651, 657, 116 S. Ct. 2333, 135 L. Ed. 2d 827 (1996).The present petition is a second or successive petition under§ 2244(b)(3)(A) because it challenges the same state court judgmentchallenged in Case No. CV 09-1914, and that petition was dismissedwith prejudice. This court may not review a successive petitionunless the petitioner has first obtained the required order from theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. There is no
Case 2:09-cv-07943-JFW-CW Document 3 Filed 11/05/2009 Page 3 of 4
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...