Saturnino Prado v. Unknown

Filing 3

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

Download PDF
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?