Sparks v. ISCI Warden ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO MICHAEL LANE SPARKS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00115-DCN Petitioner, INITIAL REVIEW ORDER and v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL ISCI WARDEN AL RAMIREZ, Respondent. Petitioner Michael Lane Sparks has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his 2013 Idaho state court conviction for second-degree murder. Dkt. 1. The Court now reviews the Petition to determine whether it is subject to summary dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”). REVIEW OF PETITION 1. Standard of Law for Review of Petition Federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is available to petitioners who show that they are held in custody under a state court judgment and that such custody violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The Court is required to review a habeas corpus petition upon receipt to determine whether it is subject to summary dismissal. Habeas Rule 4. Summary dismissal is appropriate where “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Id. 2. Discussion Petitioner previously brought a habeas corpus action in this Court challenging the same second-degree murder conviction. See Sparks v. Blades, Case No. 1:15-cv-00036- BLW (D. Idaho). That previous petition was denied and dismissed with prejudice in 2016. See id., Dkt. 13 & 14. Before a prisoner can file a second or successive federal habeas corpus petition challenging the same conviction, parole revocation, or sentence as in his first habeas corpus petition, he must first obtain authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). A federal district court may not, “in the absence of proper authorization from the [Ninth Circuit], consider a second or successive habeas application.” Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Petitioner has not shown that he has obtained the required authorization from the court of appeals to file a successive petition challenging his second-degree murder conviction, this case must be dismissed. ORDER IT IS ORDERED: 1. This habeas corpus action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 2. Petitioner’s Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 4) is DENIED as MOOT. 3. The Court does not find its resolution of this habeas matter to be reasonably debatable, and a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Habeas Rule 11. If Petitioner wishes to appeal, he must file a timely notice of appeal in this Court. Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit by filing a request in that court. Lea DATED: April 10, 2020 4 a □ ab! | ~-- ss — Z David C. Nye = Chief U.S. District Court Judge INITIAL REVIEW ORDER and ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 3