1 2 3 4 5 6 7 JS-6 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 12 13 JEFFREY GEDDES, ) Case No. SACV 20-00349-JFW (AS) ) 14 Petitioner, ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL ) 15 ) v. ) 16 ) CYNTHIA M. HERREA, Judge, ) 17 Orange County Court, ) ) 18 Respondent. ) ) 19 20 BACKGROUND 21 22 On February 20, 2020, Jeffrey Geddes (“Petitioner”), a 23 California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a “Petition for 24 Writ of Habeas Corpus” (Docket Entry No. 1), which the Court 25 construes as a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody 26 pursuant to

(“Petition”). (Docket Entry No. 1). 27 Petitioner challenges his 2017 conviction for carjacking (pursuant 28 1 to a plea agreement) and resulting 3-year sentence in the Orange 2 County Superior Court (Case No. 17WF1049). While the Petition 3 alleges ineffectiveness by the prosecutors in relation to the 4 withdrawal of the plea, the claim is incomprehensible. (See 5 Petition at 2).1 6 7 On September 30, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ 8 of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28

, challenging the same conviction.2 See Jeffrey 10 Geddes v. Orange Copunty Judge Michael Murray, Case No. SACV 19- 11 01871-JFW (AS); Docket Entry No. 1 (“the prior habeas action”). 12 On January 31, 2020, the district court issued an Order and 13 Judgment denying that habeas petition with prejudice (based on 14 Petitioner’s failure to comply with Court orders and failure to 15 prosecute), in accordance with the findings and conclusions of the 16 Magistrate Judge. (Id.; Docket Entry Nos. 6-8). On January 31, 17 2020, the district court denied Petitioner a certificate of 18 appealability. (Id.; Docket Entry No. 9). 19 20 DISCUSSION 21 22 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 23 (“AEDPA”), enacted on April 24, 1996, provides in pertinent part 24 1 The Court is utilizing the pagination provided by the 25 Court’s electronic docketing system. 26 2 Since Petitioner was in state custody, Petitioner’s prior federal habeas petition should have been brought pursuant 27 to

, rather than

. 28 2 1 that: 2 (a) No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus 3 to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States if it appears 4 that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior 5 application for a writ of habeas corpus, except as provided in §2255. 6 (b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive 7 habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. 8 (2) A claim presented in a second or successive 9 habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed 10 unless-- 11 (A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to 12 cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or 13 (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could 14 not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and 15 (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and 16 viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence 17 that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the 18 underlying offense. 19 (3)(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district 20 court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court 21 to consider the application. 22 (B) A motion in the court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or 23 successive application shall be determined by a three- judge panel of the court of appeals. 24 (C) The court of appeals may authorize the filing 25 of a second or successive application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie 26 showing that the application satisfies the requirements of this subsection. 27 28 3 1 (D) The court of appeals shall grant or deny the authorization to file a second or successive application 2 not later than 30 days after the filing of the motion. 3 (E) The grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive 4 application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a Petition for Rehearing or for a Writ of 5 Certiorari. 6 (4) A district court shall dismiss any claim presented in a second or successive application that the 7 court of appeals has authorized to be filed unless the applicant shows that the claim satisfies the 8 requirements of this section.

. 9

(b)(3) “creates a ‘gatekeeping’ mechanism for 10 the consideration of second or successive applications in district 11 court. The prospective applicant must file in the court of 12 appeals a motion for leave to file a second or successive habeas 13 application in the district court. § 2244(b)(3)(A).” Felker v. 14 Turpin,

(1996). 15 16 The instant Petition, filed on February 20, 2020, and the 17 prior habeas action both challenge Petitioner’s custody pursuant 18 to the same 2017 judgment entered by the Orange County Superior 19 Court. Accordingly, the instant Petition is a second or 20 successive habeas petition for purposes of

. 21 Therefore, Petitioner was required to obtain authorization from 22 the Court of Appeals before filing the present Petition. See 28

(b)(3)(A). No such authorization has been obtained 24 in this case. 25 26 Moreover, the claim asserted in the instant Petition does not 27 28 4 appear to fall within the exceptions to the bar on second or 2|| successive petitions because the asserted claim is not based on newly discovered facts or a “a new rule of constitutional law, 4|}made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” Tyler v. Cain,

(2001). However, this determination must be made by the United States Court of Appeals upon a petitioner’s motion for an 8] order authorizing the district court to consider his second or 9|| successive petition.

(b); see also Burton v. Stewart,

(2007) (where the petitioner did not receive authorization from the Court of Appeals before filing 12!) second or successive petition, “the District Court was without 13 |) jurisdiction to entertain [the petition]”); Barapind v. Reno, 225 14] F.3d 1100, 1111 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he prior-appellate-review mechanism set forth in § 2244(b) requires the permission of the court of appeals before ‘a second or successive habeas application under § 2254’ may be commenced.”). 18 19 Because Petitioner has not obtained authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court cannot entertain the present Petition. See Burton v.

/// 23} /// 24] /// 25 /// 26 |} /// 27 /// 28

1 ORDER 2 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition be dismissed 4]| without prejudice. 5 6 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 7 8 || DATED: February 25, 2020 9 10 Ae J Mi JOWN F. WALTER 1 UNSEED SPATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28