Cedric Green v. Travis Pennington
5:25-cv-00171
C.D. Cal.Jan 31, 2025Background
- Cedric Green, a state prisoner, was convicted in 1998 of robbery and sentenced under California's Three Strikes law to 35 years to life.
- Green’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal and his subsequent state and federal habeas petitions were denied as untimely or as successive without authorization.
- In 2021, the California Board of Parole Hearings denied Green parole for five years.
- Green filed a federal habeas petition challenging both (1) the parole board’s 2021 denial and (2) his counsel’s ineffectiveness at sentencing in 1998.
- The current petition was filed in the Central District of California, though both the conviction and parole denial pertain to venues in the Northern District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single Petition for Multiple Judgments | Green challenges both conviction and parole denial in one habeas petition. | N/A | Improper to challenge different judgments in one petition. |
| Successive Petition | Green attacks his original conviction again. | N/A | Treated as unauthorized successive petition without appellate approval; raises jurisdictional bar. |
| Venue | Green files in Central District. | N/A | Venue lies in Northern District, where underlying events and records are located. |
| Timely Response | Court orders Green to show cause why case shouldn't be dismissed. | N/A | Failure to respond may result in dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or prosecution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (per curiam) (explains strict requirements for second or successive habeas petitions)
- Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (clarifies requirements for filing successive habeas petitions)
- Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 (discusses appellate authorization for successive petitions)
- Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (discusses exceptions permitting new habeas claims)
- Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886 (addresses jurisdictional bar for failure to seek appellate authorization before filing successive petition)
- Rishor v. Ferguson, 822 F.3d 482 (holds failure to obtain appellate authorization as jurisdictional bar for successive habeas petitions)
- Bianchi v. Blodgett, 925 F.2d 305 (affirms dismissal of petition challenging multiple judgments)