Walter Ernest v. Giselle Matteson

Walter Ernest v. Giselle Matteson

Petitioner:	WALTER DEAN ERNEST
Respondent:	GISELLE MATTESON
Case Number:	20-70596
Filed:	March 3, 2020
Court:	U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit:	Other

RSS Track this Docket

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 14, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed	Document Text
April 14, 2020	Filing 2 Filed order (A. WALLACE TASHIMA, JAY S. BYBEE and PAUL J. WATFORD): In this application to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition in the district court, the applicant contends that he was denied the right to a jury determination of the prior-conviction allegations. The applicant raised this claim in a previous habeas petition filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case number 3:05-cv-02843-VRW, which was denied on the merits on October 25, 2007. The applicant concedes that this claim was previously raised in the district court but contends that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law. Because the claim was previously adjudicated by the district court, we dismiss it. See 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(1) (A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.). Even if we were to conclude that this claim was not previously presented, we nevertheless would deny the application because the applicant has not made a prima facie showing under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2)(A) that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. See Arazola-Galea v. United States, 876 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), did not announce a new rule of constitutional law); Ezell v. United States, 778 F.3d 762, 766-67 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), did not announce a new rule of constitutional law). Any pending motions are denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this case. DENIED. [11660190] (RT) [Entered: 04/14/2020 09:52 AM]
March 3, 2020	Filing 1 Filed application for leave to file a second or successive petition with exhibits, with CJA Form 23. (Research) [11616744] --[COURT UPDATE: To attach document; resent NDA (Original to SMS) - 03/04/2020 by HH] (AF) [Entered: 03/03/2020 02:11 PM]

Date Filed

Document Text

April 14, 2020

Filing 2 Filed order (A. WALLACE TASHIMA, JAY S. BYBEE and PAUL J. WATFORD): In this application to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition in the district court, the applicant contends that he was denied the right to a jury determination of the prior-conviction allegations. The applicant raised this claim in a previous habeas petition filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case number 3:05-cv-02843-VRW, which was denied on the merits on October 25, 2007. The applicant concedes that this claim was previously raised in the district court but contends that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law. Because the claim was previously adjudicated by the district court, we dismiss it. See 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(1) (A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.). Even if we were to conclude that this claim was not previously presented, we nevertheless would deny the application because the applicant has not made a prima facie showing under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2)(A) that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. See Arazola-Galea v. United States, 876 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), did not announce a new rule of constitutional law); Ezell v. United States, 778 F.3d 762, 766-67 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), did not announce a new rule of constitutional law). Any pending motions are denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this case. DENIED. [11660190] (RT) [Entered: 04/14/2020 09:52 AM]

March 3, 2020

Filing 1 Filed application for leave to file a second or successive petition with exhibits, with CJA Form 23. (Research) [11616744] --[COURT UPDATE: To attach document; resent NDA (Original to SMS) - 03/04/2020 by HH] (AF) [Entered: 03/03/2020 02:11 PM]

Access additional case information on PACER

Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Search for this case: Walter Ernest v. Giselle Matteson
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: WALTER DEAN ERNEST
Represented By:	Walter Dean Ernest
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: GISELLE MATTESON
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?