Otis Lee Rodgers v. State of California
5:17-cv-01233
C.D. Cal.Jul 6, 2017Background
- Petitioner Otis Lee Rodgers was convicted in Riverside County (trial case RIF098234) in 2003 of assault with a firearm, possession of a firearm/ammunition by a felon, and making criminal threats; sentenced to 16 years.
- The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction; the California Supreme Court granted then dismissed review; the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- Rodgers previously filed a federal habeas petition (EDCV 08-1003-VAP (MLG), “Rodgers I”), which this court dismissed with prejudice in 2013.
- Rodgers has repeatedly sought Ninth Circuit permission to file a second or successive §2254 petition; prior applications were denied and a third was pending.
- In June 2017 Rodgers filed the present §2254 petition challenging the same conviction; his new petition alleged a racially motivated conspiracy and prosecutorial/judicial misconduct.
- The district court concluded the new petition is a second or successive petition and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction because Rodgers lacked Ninth Circuit authorization to file it in district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court has jurisdiction to hear Rodgers’ 2017 §2254 petition | Rodgers sought habeas relief on the same conviction, alleging RICO-style conspiracy and misconduct | State argued the petition is second or successive and Rodgers lacks court-of-appeals authorization under AEDPA §2244(b)(3)(A) | The petition is second or successive; without Ninth Circuit authorization the district court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the petition |
| Whether summary dismissal under Rule 4 is appropriate | Rodgers advanced substantive conspiracy and misconduct claims | Respondent and court noted plain defect (lack of authorization) that may be resolved on the petition’s face | Court applied Rule 4 and ordered summary dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (recognizing AEDPA governs post-AEDPA petitions)
- Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (district court lacks jurisdiction to consider successive habeas petitions without court of appeals authorization)
- Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270 (9th Cir.) (same: district court may not consider second or successive petition absent proper authorization)