Hildebrand v. Davis
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-01113
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Hildebrand v. Davis, Judge Hamilton dismissed the successive habeas petition and denied a certificate of appealability.
Michael Hildebrand's federal habeas petition was dismissed for failure to obtain the required Ninth Circuit authorization for a second or successive petition. The order allows him to refile if he later obtains that authorization.
What happened
Michael Hildebrand, a state prisoner representing himself, sought federal relief concerning the sentence imposed after his 2006 conviction and guilty plea. He had previously filed a petition about the same conviction, which was dismissed as too late, and his appeal was denied.
The court ruled that the amended petition was a second or successive petition. Before filing such a petition in the district court, Hildebrand had to obtain authorization from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court dismissed the petition but said he could refile if he obtained that authorization.
The court also denied a certificate of appealability because it found that reasonable judges would not debate the result. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the clerk to close the file.
The detailed version
- Hildebrand v. Davis · No. 4:20-cv-01113
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 20, 2020
Background
Michael Hildebrand filed this federal habeas petition without a lawyer while incarcerated as a state prisoner. The petition challenged the sentencing for his 2006 conviction, for which he had entered a plea bargain. The court had dismissed his original petition while allowing him to amend it, and he then filed an amended petition.
The court noted that Hildebrand had previously filed a petition in the same court concerning the same conviction. That earlier proceeding was dismissed as untimely in 2012, and an appeal was denied.
Court’s analysis
The court treated the amended petition as a second or successive application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), a claim that was not presented in a prior application generally must be dismissed unless it falls within specified exceptions, including reliance on a new retroactive constitutional rule or newly undiscoverable facts sufficient to establish actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence.
The court emphasized that, before filing a second or successive petition in the district court, the petitioner must obtain an order from the Ninth Circuit authorizing the district court to consider it. Because Hildebrand had not obtained that authorization, the court stated that the new claims could not proceed even if they had merit.
Disposition
The court dismissed the petition. It stated that Hildebrand could refile if he received authorization from the Ninth Circuit. The court denied a certificate of appealability, finding that reasonable jurists would not debate the result, and directed the clerk to close the file. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.