Fuller v. Arnold
| JESSE THOMAS FULLER |
| KARIN ARNOLD |
| 25-1598 |
| March 12, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 24, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER FILED. Susan P. GRABER, Holly A. THOMAS, Anthony D. JOHNSTONE The application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition in the district court is denied. The applicant has not made a prima facie showing under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2) that: (A) 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; or (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. Contrary to the applicants contention, Turner v. Baker, 912 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2019), does not support his request for authorization. Turner held that, under Nevada law, when the state court amends a judgment to award credit for time served, the change results in a new judgment. Id. at 1240; see Gonzalez v. Sherman, 873 F.3d 763, 769 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that, under California law, [A] courts recalculation and alteration of the number of time-served or other similar credits awarded to a petitioner constitutes a new judgment.). In contrast, the record does not show that the King County Superior Court amended the applicants judgment to award credit for time served, and that he has not already filed a 2254 petition challenging that amended judgment. Further, this court has not yet determined if, under Washington state law, amending a judgment to award credit for time served constitutes a new judgment. See Gonzalez, 873 F.3d at 769 (We look to state law to determine whether a state court action constitutes a new, intervening judgment.). Any pending motions are denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this case. DENIED. [Entered: 04/24/2025 03:15 PM]
|
| Filing 4 CORRESPONDENCE filed by Petitioner Jesse Thomas Fuller. [Entered: 04/01/2025 08:26 AM] |
| Filing 3 SCHEDULE NOTICE. No briefing schedule is set for this type of case. All subsequent correspondence regarding this matter will be added to your file to be considered at the same time the cause is brought before the court. [Entered: 03/12/2025 07:22 AM] |
| Filing 2 CASE OPENED. Your case opening documents have been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on 3/11/2025. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 25-1598 has been assigned to this case. All communications with the court must indicate this Court of Appeals docket number. Please carefully review the docket to ensure the name(s) and contact information are correct. It is your responsibility to alert the court if your contact information changes. Resources Available For more information about case processing and to assist you in preparing your brief, please review the #Appellate Practice Guide. Attorneys should consider the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for assistance. [Entered: 03/12/2025 07:20 AM] |
| Filing 1 APPLICATION for Leave to File 28 U.S.C. 2254 Second or Successive Petition. [Entered: 03/12/2025 07:19 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: Fuller v. Arnold | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: JESSE THOMAS FULLER | |
| Represented By: | Jesse Thomas Fuller |
| 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: KARIN ARNOLD | |
| 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 | [ 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.
