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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?