841 F.3d 581
2d Cir.2016Background
- Jesus H. Garcia, pro se, seeks leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition attacking his 2009 New York conviction for burglary and sexual abuse.
- Garcia previously filed multiple § 2254 petitions challenging the same conviction; the district court dismissed at least three petitions as incomprehensible.
- In the first § 2254 proceeding the district court gave Garcia leave to amend an "indecipherable" petition, and dismissed it after Garcia failed to cure the defect.
- Garcia filed two additional incomprehensible § 2254 petitions while the first appeal period had not yet expired; the district court dismissed them and Garcia failed to obtain a certificate of appealability for one appeal and did not appeal the other.
- The court considered whether prior dismissals for incomprehensibility count as decisions "on the merits" so that Garcia’s new filing would be a "successive" petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
- The court concluded Garcia’s current proposed petition is successive and denied leave because Garcia failed to make the required prima facie showing under § 2244(b)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of an incomprehensible § 2254 petition is a decision "on the merits" for successive-petition rules | Garcia effectively argued prior dismissals should not bar a new petition (implicitly) | Prior dismissals should count as on-the-merits where petitioner had notice and chance to cure | Dismissal for incomprehensibility is on the merits if petitioner was on notice and had reasonable opportunity to amend |
| Whether Garcia received notice and an opportunity to cure the petition’s defects | Garcia asserts (implicitly) he should be permitted to file again | District court gave leave to amend and Garcia filed further indecipherable petitions after being warned | Court held Garcia had notice and opportunity; requirement satisfied |
| Whether the present petition is "successive" | Garcia contends leave should be granted to file | Prior adjudications (dismissals) operate to make a later petition successive | Court held the present petition is successive |
| Whether Garcia made the § 2244(b)(2) prima facie showing to warrant authorization to file a successive petition | Garcia did not make a coherent showing of a new retroactive rule or newly discovered facts | Government argues Garcia’s submission is incomprehensible and fails § 2244(b)(2) | Court denied leave because Garcia failed to make the required prima facie showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Hom Sui Ching v. United States, 298 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2002) (finality and successive-petition timing principles)
- Whab v. United States, 408 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2005) (adjudication is final when time to seek Supreme Court review expires)
- Vu v. United States, 648 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2011) (describing when a petition is successive and need for authorization)
- Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691 (2d Cir. 1972) (incomprehensible complaint fails to state a claim)
- Berrios v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 564 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2009) (dismissal for failure to state a claim is a final judgment on the merits)
- Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2000) (pro se complaints should be granted leave to amend at least once unless futile)
- McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2004) (recognizing pro se-litigant limitations and explaining reluctance to dismiss without opportunity to amend)