Richard Jackson v. Eric Arnold
2:17-cv-06524
C.D. Cal.Sep 12, 2017Background
- Petitioner Richard Jackson filed a federal habeas petition on Sept. 5, 2017 challenging his Oct. 27, 1997 conviction for burglary with possession of a firearm in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
- Jackson previously filed multiple habeas petitions in this district challenging the same conviction (notably in 2000, 2003, 2007), and the 2000 petition was dismissed on the merits with prejudice.
- Jackson filed an earlier 2017 habeas petition in this Court (CV 17-5679) raising the same claims; that petition was dismissed as successive.
- Jackson applied to the Ninth Circuit on May 2, 2017 for authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition; that application (No. 17-71266) remained pending and no authorization had been granted.
- The district court concluded the Sept. 5, 2017 petition was a successive petition under AEDPA and that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider it because Jackson had not obtained prior authorization from the Ninth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sept. 5, 2017 petition is successive under AEDPA | Jackson reasserts ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct, due process, jury instruction, and Marsden claims challenging the 1997 conviction | Respondent argues the claims were or could have been raised earlier and thus are successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) | Court held the petition is successive because claims were previously litigated or could have been discovered earlier |
| Whether any § 2244(b)(2) exception applies to permit consideration of the petition | Jackson did not argue a new retroactive constitutional rule or newly discovered factual predicate meeting § 2244(b)(2) requirements | Respondent asserts no § 2244(b)(2) exception is shown | Court found no showing of the statutory exceptions and thus no basis to treat petition as non-successive |
| Whether district court may consider the petition absent Ninth Circuit authorization | Jackson filed an authorization application in the Ninth Circuit but had not received permission | Respondent contends AEDPA requires appellate authorization before district court consideration | Court held it lacked jurisdiction to consider the successive petition without Ninth Circuit authorization under § 2244(b)(3)(A) and controlling precedent |
| Whether the petition is time‑barred under § 2244(d) | Jackson filed in 2017, nearly 20 years after conviction | Respondent notes AEDPA one-year statute of limitations and that petition appears untimely | Court observed the petition on its face appears barred by the statute of limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270 (9th Cir.) (defining successive habeas application)
- Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007) (AEDPA requires Court of Appeals authorization before district court may entertain successive petition)
- Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Ct. (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir.) (application of AEDPA statute of limitations in habeas cases)
- People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (1970) (procedural rule on defendant’s motion for new counsel)