Rogers v. Benavidez.

Background

Michael D. Rogers, an inmate at Corcoran State Prison, filed this action without a lawyer under the federal law allowing a state prisoner to seek relief when custody allegedly violates the Constitution or federal law. He was sentenced in 2006 to 41 years to life in state prison after being found guilty of robbery, burglary, assault, and second-degree murder with a deadly weapon in San Francisco Superior Court cases 194257 and 2196902.

Rogers had previously challenged the convictions on direct appeal and in state court. He also filed two earlier federal habeas proceedings challenging the same conviction and sentence. The first earlier federal petition was denied on the merits on January 11, 2012. The second was denied as second or successive, and the Ninth Circuit later denied Rogers’s request for authorization to file another second or successive petition.

Rogers filed the current federal petition around September 27, 2022. During screening, the court dismissed his claim based on California legislation because it alleged an error in applying state law, which is not a basis for federal habeas relief, and allowed him to file an amended petition concerning other arguments. The amended petition raised nine grounds: admission of prior-bad-act evidence and counsel’s failure to object; admission of hearsay testimony about the victim’s fear; double jeopardy; ineffective assistance concerning double jeopardy; prosecutorial presentation of false testimony; denial of a motion to sever; violation of speedy-trial rights; ineffective assistance concerning speedy-trial materials; and prosecutorial misconduct involving DNA testing.

Court’s analysis

The court determined that the amended petition challenged the same convictions and sentence as Rogers’s earlier federal habeas petition and raised the same claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), a claim presented in a second or successive federal habeas application that was presented in a prior application must be dismissed. The court therefore dismissed the amended petition on that procedural ground rather than deciding the underlying claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus as second or successive and denied a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal certain habeas decisions; the court found that Rogers had not shown that reasonable judges could debate whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct. The court also directed the clerk to substitute warden Tammy L. Campbell as respondent because she was Rogers’s current custodian, entered judgment for the respondent, denied pending motions as moot, and closed the case.