1 2 3 JS-6 4 5 6 7 8 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-WESTERN DIVISION

11 12 13 ANTHONY DION JEFFERSON ) Case No. CV 20-09146-MWF (AS) ) 14 Petitioner, ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL ) 15 ) v. ) 16 )

RAYMOND MADDEN, )

17 ) Respondent. ) 18 ) 19 20 BACKGROUND 21 22 On October 5, 2020, Anthony Dion Jefferson (“Petitioner”), 23 a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition 24 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant 25 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). (Docket Entry No. 1). 26 Petitioner challenges his 1994 “felony murder” conviction, in Los 27 28 Angeles County Superior Court (Case No. BA042241).! 2 3 Petitioner contends that the California courts erred in not granting Petitioner’s Petition for Resentencing pursuant to California Penal Code § 1170.95, in violation of Petitioner’s rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. (See Petition 7 at 17-19) .? 8 9 On March 14, 2000, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S$ 2254, challenging the same conviction. See Anthony Dion 12|| Jefferson v. Larry Small, Case No. CV 00-02683-JSL (MN); Docket Entry No. 1. Petitioner subsequently filed a First Amended Petition on April 5, 2000, and (following the Court’s dismissal 15]}of the First Amended Petition with leave to amend), a Second Amended Petition on May 12, 2020. (Id.; Docket Entry No. 5). On October 5, 2000, the district court issued an Order and Judgment dismissing the action with prejudice as untimely, in accordance 19] with the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the 20 || Magistrate Judge. (Id.; Docket Entry Nos. 22-23). On October 30, 21 22 ! The Court takes judicial notice OF Petitioner’s other 23 federal habeas cases -- Anthony Dion Jefferson v. Larry Small, Case No. CV 00-2683-JSL (MAN) and Anthony Dion Jefferson v. 4 Silvia Garcia, Case No. CV 03-6312-JSL (MAN). Petitioner was convicted of one count of first degree murder, two counts of 25 kidnapping, two counts of first degree burglary, one count of first degree robbery, two counts of rape, and one count of rape %6 with a foreign object. 27 2 The Court refers to page numbers using the ECF numbering system. 28

2000, the district court denied Petitioner’s petition for a certificate of appealability. (Id.; Docket Entry No. 25). On December 21, 2000, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability.* On June 2001 and October 1, 2001, the United States Supreme Court 6|| denied Petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari. (See id.; 7\| Docket Entry No. 5 at 3). 8 9 On September 4, 2003, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the same conviction. See Anthony Dion 12|| Jefferson v. Silvia Garcia, Case No. CV 03-06312-JSL (MAN); Docket Entry No. 1). On October 8, 2003, the district court dismissed that habeas petition without prejudice as an unauthorized second or successive petition, (id.; Docket Entry Nos. 5-6), and on October 28, 2003, denied petitioner a certificate of appealability. (Id.; Docket Entry No. 8). On January 20, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s request for 19}! a certificate of appealability, and denied Petitioner’s motion for 20 |} reconsideration on February 11, 2004, denied . (Id.; Docket Entry Nos. 13, 15). Petitioner’s subsequent applications for authorization to file a second or successive petition were denied by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 15, 2004, and August 12, 2008. (Id.; Docket Entry Nos. 16-17). 25 26 |} ——_#£- ——\—__—_—_- 7 See Anthony Dion Jefferson v. Silvia Garcia, Case No. CV 03-06312-JSL (MAN); Docket Entry No. 5 at 2-3. 28

1 DISCUSSION 2 3 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 4 (“AEDPA”), enacted on April 24, 1996, provides in pertinent part 5 that: 6 (a) No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus 7 to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States if it appears 8 that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior 9 application for a writ of habeas corpus, except as provided in §2255. 10 (b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive 11 habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. 12 (2) A claim presented in a second or successive 13 habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed 14 unless-- 15 (A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to 16 cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or 17 (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could 18 not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and 19 (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and 20 viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence 21 that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the 22 underlying offense. 23 (3)(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district 24 court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court 25 to consider the application. 26 (B) A motion in the court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or 27 successive application shall be determined by a three- 28 4 1 judge panel of the court of appeals. 2 (C) The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it 3 determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements 4 of this subsection. 5 (D) The court of appeals shall grant or deny the authorization to file a second or successive application 6 not later than 30 days after the filing of the motion. 7 (E) The grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive 8 application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a Petition for Rehearing or for a Writ of 9 Certiorari. 10 (4) A district court shall dismiss any claim presented in a second or successive application that the 11 court of appeals has authorized to be filed unless the applicant shows that the claim satisfies the 12 requirements of this section. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. 13 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) “creates a ‘gatekeeping’ mechanism for 14 the consideration of second or successive applications in district 15 court. The prospective applicant must file in the court of 16 appeals a motion for leave to file a second or successive habeas 17 application in the district court. § 2244(b)(3)(A).” Felker v. 18 Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996). 19 20 The instant Petition, filed on October 5, 2020, and the prior 21 habeas actions challenge Petitioner’s custody pursuant to the same 22 2014 judgment entered by the Los Angeles County Superior Court. 23 Accordingly, the instant Petition is a second or successive habeas 24 petition for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Therefore, Petitioner 25 was required to obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals 26 before filing the present Petition. See 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(A). 27 28 5 such authorization has been obtained in this case. 2 3 Moreover, the claim asserted in the instant Petition does not 4|| appear to fall within the exceptions to the bar on second or 5|| successive petitions because the asserted claim is not based on newly discovered facts or a “a new rule of constitutional law, 7\|}made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 9} 656, 662 (2001). However, this determination must be made by the 10}} United States Court of Appeals upon a petitioner’s motion for an order authorizing the district court to consider his second or successive petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); see also Burton v. 13) Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (where the petitioner did not receive authorization from the Court of Appeals before filing second or successive petition, “the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain [the petition]”); Barapind v. Reno, 225 17] F.3d 1100, 1111 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he prior-appellate-review 18!) mechanism set forth in § 2244(b) requires the permission of the 19] court of appeals before ‘a second or successive habeas application under § 2254’ may be commenced.”). 21 22 Because Petitioner has not obtained authorization from the 23 || Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court cannot entertain the present Petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. at 157. 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: October 9, 2020 HWY a, 9 * ij

MICHAEL W. FIT ALD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28