Saturnino Prado v. Unknown

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge George H. King, re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) 1 (dt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

SATURNINO PRADO,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, )
)
Respondent.
)
)

No. CV 11-8069-GHK(CW)
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
AS SUCCESSIVE

17
18

Petitioner is a prisoner in state custody pursuant to a 2000

19

conviction in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No.

20

BA195408. The present pro se petition apparently challenges the

21

legality of his conviction.1

Petitioner has brought several prior

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The present petition does not name a respondent or articulate
any claims for relief. Petitioner indicates on the form habeas
petition only that he is attacking a conviction. Attachments to the
petition include, among other things, documents relating to
Petitioner’s prior habeas challenges, a statement to the state supreme
court proclaiming his actual innocence, and documents relating to his
involuntary medication while in custody. The record in Petitioner’s
prior cases in this court properly identifies the court and case of
conviction.
If Petitioner wants to bring a civil rights challenge to events
relating to his treatment while in custody under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, his
1

1

federal habeas petitions that challenged the same conviction.

One of

2

these petitions, Prado v. Specter, No. CV 05-4053-GHK(CW), was

3

dismissed with prejudice, as untimely, in a judgment entered November

4

15, 2006.

5

unexhausted.

6

Eight other petitions have been dismissed, without prejudice, as

7

successive.

8

Knowles, No. CV 07-3355-GHK(CW); Prado v. Warden, No. CV 08-6909-

9

GHK(CW); Prado v. Warden, No. CV 08-7458-GHK(CW); Prado v. Altoon, No.

10

CV 10-2931-JHN(CW); Prado v. Spector, No. CV 10-7492-JHN(CW); Prado v.

11

U.S. District Court, No. CV 10-9065-GHK(CW)(successive); and Prado v.

12

Unknown, CV11-3789-GHK(CW)(successive).

Another petition was dismissed, without prejudice, as
See Prado v. McGrath, No. CV 04-456-GHK(CW)(dismissed).

See Prado v. Spector, No. CV 07-2532-GHK(CW); Prado v.

13

DISCUSSION

14

A new habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which challenges

15

the same state court judgment addressed in one or more prior § 2254

16

petitions, is a second or successive petition.

17

court may not consider a second or successive petition unless the

18

petitioner has first obtained an order from the proper federal circuit

19

court of appeals authorizing the district court to review the new

20

petition.

21

only authorize review of a second or successive petition in the

22

district court if the petitioner “makes a prima facie showing [to the

23

court of appeals] that the application satisfies the requirements of”

24

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

25

518 U.S. 651, 657, 116 S. Ct. 2333, 135 L. Ed. 2d 827 (1996).

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

A federal district

The court of appeals may

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C); Felker v. Turpin,

26
27
28

complaint would be subject to the filing and screening requirements of
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110
Stat. 1321 (1996).
2

1

The present petition is a second or successive petition under

2

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) because it challenges the same state court judgment

3

challenged in a prior federal petition, and that prior petition was

4

dismissed with prejudice.

5

petition unless the petitioner has first obtained the required order

6

from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

7

is no indication in the record that this petitioner has obtained such

8

an order.

9

without prejudice.2

This court may not review a successive

There

Therefore, the present petition is subject to dismissal

10

Petitioner may file a new petition in this court if and only if

11

he first obtains authorization from the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28

12

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).3

13
14
15
16
17

ORDERS:
1.

It is ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing the

petition as successive.
2.

The clerk shall serve copies of this order and the judgment

herein on the petitioner.

18
19

DATED:

10/5/11

20
21
GEORGE H. KING
United States District Judge

22
23
24
2

25
26

A new petition is not subject to dismissal as successive under
§ 2244(b)(3)(A) based on a prior petition dismissed without prejudice
(e.g., for failure to exhaust state remedies). In re Turner, 101 F.3d
1323, 1323 (9th Cir. 1997). The present petition is dismissed as
successive to No. CV 05-4053 which was dismissed with prejudice.

27
3

28

If Petitioner continues to file successive petitions, this
court will continue to dismiss them summarily.
3

1

Presented by:

2

Dated: October 4, 2011

3
4
5

CARLA M. WOEHRLE
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4