Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and dismissed Simon F. Ranteesi’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition without prejudice as an unauthorized second or successive petition. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability and directed the Clerk to close the case.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the habeas petition was an unauthorized second or successive petition requiring dismissal.
- Whether petitioner's objections provided a basis to reject the magistrate judge's recommendation.
- Whether the court should issue a certificate of appealability after dismissing the petition on procedural grounds.
Holdings
- A habeas petition challenging the same conviction and sentence as a prior federal habeas petition denied on the merits must be dismissed when the petitioner has not obtained the required authorization from the court of appeals to file a second or successive petition.
- Petitioner's objections did not provide a basis to reject the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations.
- A certificate of appealability should not issue because reasonable jurists would not find debatable or wrong the court's determination that the petition must be dismissed on procedural grounds.
Key quotations
“jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” (at 2)
Factual background
Petitioner Simon F. Ranteesi, a state prisoner, filed a federal habeas petition challenging a state-court conviction and sentence. He had previously filed a federal habeas petition attacking the same conviction and sentence, and that petition had been denied on the merits. The record did not show authorization from the Ninth Circuit for a second or successive petition, and petitioner acknowledged that the Ninth Circuit had refused to grant him leave.
Procedural history
The magistrate judge found that petitioner had previously filed a federal habeas petition challenging the same conviction and sentence and that the prior petition had been denied on the merits. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal because petitioner had not obtained authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive petition. Petitioner filed timely objections, but the district court concluded that they did not undermine the recommendation, adopted it in full, dismissed the petition without prejudice, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and closed the case.