Jovanny Hernandez v. Christian Pfeiffer, 2:25-cv-02073

Jovanny Hernandez, a California state prisoner, filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2008 conviction.
Hernandez previously filed a federal habeas petition in 2012, also challenging the same 2008 conviction, which was dismissed with prejudice in 2013.
The current petition asserts claims of ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel.
Hernandez acknowledges the petition is successive but contends that a recent sentence recall under state law (People v. Heard) renders his petition non-successive.
The Court screens the petition and identifies it as likely successive under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), barring such petitions without higher court authorization.
Hernandez has not obtained the required permission from the Ninth Circuit to file this successive petition.

Issue	Hernandez's Argument	Court's Argument/Position	Held
Whether the habeas petition is barred as successive under AEDPA	Recent sentence recall means a new judgment and the petition is not successive	State recall does not necessarily create a new judgment for federal purposes	Petition is likely successive and barred absent authorization
Whether binding authority supports non-successive status after resentencing	Cites Sixth Circuit and state case law suggesting resentencing exempts from bar	Magwood (U.S. Supreme Court) controls and requires a genuinely new judgment	Cited precedent (King) is not binding; Magwood applies; petition remains successive
Whether the district court has jurisdiction absent appellate authorization	Not required given state recall	Authorization from Ninth Circuit is mandatory under § 2244(b)	Court lacks jurisdiction without Ninth Circuit approval
Proper procedure for petitioner if he wishes to proceed	Filing in district court is sufficient	Must seek permission from appellate court before filing	Petitioner must show cause or risk dismissal

Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (AEDPA applies to petitions filed after April 24, 1996)
Brown v. Atchley, 76 F.4th 862 (Ninth Circuit case applying AEDPA's successive petition requirements)
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (authorization from appellate court required for successive habeas)
Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (limitations on second or successive habeas petitions, outlines exceptions)
Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (a new judgment after full resentencing is required for a new, non-successive petition)
Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886 (petitioner must seek and obtain appellate authorization for successive petitions)