United States District Court, D. Arizona
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BRIDGET S. BADE, Magistrate Judge.
On March 25, 2014, Petitioner Dennis Paul Eddy filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) In accordance with Court orders, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition on December 8, 2014. (Docs. 7, 8, 22, 23.) On May 13, 2015, Respondents filed a notice of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting the Court does not have jurisdiction over the pending Second Amended Petition because it is a successive petition for writ of habeas corpus (the Notice). (Doc. 33.)
The Court ordered Petitioner to file a response to the Notice by June 15, 2015. (Doc. 34.) On Petitioner's motion, the Court later extended that deadline to August 17, 2015. (Docs. 36, 38.) On August 13, 2015, Petitioner responded to the Notice. (Doc. 46.) Before filing his response, Petitioner filed a motion for declaratory judgment, a motion for relief from judgment, and requests for expedited rulings on those motions. (Docs. 39, 40, 41, 43.)
As set forth below, the Court finds that the claims asserted in Grounds One, Two, and Three of the Second Amended Petition should be denied as successive, but that Respondents should be required to answer the claims asserted in Grounds Four, Five, and Six. The Court also recommends that Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 40) be denied, and that his Motion for Declaratory Judgment (Doc. 39) be construed as a motion to supplement the Second Amended Petition, and granted.
I. Procedural Background
In June 1986, following a jury trial in Coconino County Superior Court Case No. CR85-11929, Petitioner was convicted of armed burglary, aggravated assault, and theft of property. (Doc. 33, Ex. A at 1.) The court imposed concurrent sentences; the longest sentenced imposed was life imprisonment without the possibility of release on parole until Petitioner served twenty-five calendar years. (Doc. 22 at 25-27.)
On April 25, 2000, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court, captioned Dennis Paul Eddy v. Terry L. Stewart, CV-00-750-PCT-ROS (LOA), in which he challenged his convictions and sentences in Coconino County Superior Court Case No. CR85-11929. (Doc. 33, Ex. A at 3; Eddy, CV-00-750-PCT-ROS (LOA), Doc. 1.) With the Court's permission, on January 29, 2001, Petitioner filed an amended petition in that case. ( Eddy, CV-00-750-PCT-ROS (LOA), Doc. 29.) On March 12, 2003, the Court dismissed the amended petition with prejudice as untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. (Doc. 33, Ex. A; Eddy, CV-00-750-PCT-ROS (LOA), Doc. 120); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (setting forth a one-year limitations period for a state prisoner to file a petition for writ of habeas in federal court).
Over ten years later, on March 28, 2014, Petitioner filed another Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court, again challenging his convictions and sentences in Coconino County Superior Court Case No. CR85-11929. (Doc. 1.) Pursuant to Court orders, Petitioner amended his petition and later filed the pending Second Amended Petition on December 8, 2014. (Doc. 22.) The Second Amended Petition also challenges Petitioner's convictions and sentences in Coconino County Superior Court Case No. CR85-11929. (Doc. 22 at 1.) The Court directed Respondents to answer the Second Amended Petition. (Doc. 23.)
Rather than filing an answer, on May 13, 2015, Respondents filed a notice of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 33.) In the Notice, Respondents assert that the Second Amended Petition is successive because the Court previously dismissed Petitioner's habeas corpus petition in Eddy v. Terry L. Stewart, CV-00-750-PCT-ROS (LOA), in which Petitioner challenged the same convictions and sentences that he challenges in the pending Second Amended Petition. (Doc. 33 at 3.)
Respondents explain that the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Second Amended Petition because Petitioner did not obtain permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) to file a successive petition as required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) ("Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.").
In his Response, Petitioner argues that the AEDPA does not apply to him, he was not aware of the requirements for filing a second or successive § 2254 petition, and he should be permitted to challenge his State custody, which he asserts exceeds his parole eligibility date. (Doc. 46.) Alternatively, Petitioner requests a stay of this matter while he seeks permission to file a second or successive petition from the Ninth Circuit. (Id. )
A. The AEDPA Applies to Petitioner and this Proceeding
Congress enacted the AEDPA to reduce delays in the execution of state and federal criminal sentences, particularly in capital cases, see Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 386 (2000), and "to further the principles of comity, finality, and federalism." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 436 (2000). Petitioner argues that the AEPDA does not apply to him because it only applies to terrorists or defendants sentenced to death. (Doc. 46.) Petitioner does not cite any authority for this ...