Jose M Reyes v. Dean Borders

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) 1 . Because petitioner has notobtained leave from the Court of Appeals, this successive petition isdismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (see document for further details) (klg)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 WESTERN DIVISION 10 11 JOSE M. REYES, 12 13 14 15 ) Case No. CV 16-6146-CBM(AJW) ) Petitioner, ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ) DISMISSING PETITION v. ) ) DEAN BORDERS, ) ) Respondent. ) _________________________________) 16 17 In 1989, petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the Los Angeles 18 Superior Court. [Petition at 2]. 19 On April 18, 1995, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of 20 habeas corpus in this Court challenging his 1989 conviction. Case No. 21 CV 95-2532-CBM(CT). That petition was denied on the merits. On 22 September 26, 2005, petitioner filed a second habeas corpus petition in 23 this Court, which was denied as successive. Case No. CV 05-697024 CBM(CT). The Ninth Circuit subsequently denied petitioner’s request for 25 leave to file a successive petition. 26 Petitioner filed the current petition for a writ of habeas corpus 27 on August 16, 2016. The petition again challenges petitioner’s 1989 28 conviction. 1 “Before a second or successive application permitted by this 2 section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the 3 appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district 4 court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Absent 5 authorization from the Court of Appeals, this Court lacks jurisdiction 6 over a successive petition. See Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 7 330-331 (2010); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 8 2001), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 984 (2003). Because petitioner has not 9 obtained leave from the Court of Appeals, this successive petition is 10 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.1 11 It is so ordered. 12 Dated: JANUARY 26, 2017 13 Consuelo B. Marshall United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Ninth Circuit Rule No. 22-3(a) provides that “[i]f a second or successive petition or motion, or an application for authorization to file such a petition or motion, is mistakenly submitted to the district court, the district court shall refer it to the court of appeals.” Because the circumstances indicate that petitioner intentionally filed this action in this Court, not that he did so mistakenly, Rule 22-3(a) is inapplicable. Nevertheless, the Clerk is directed to mail petitioner a copy of Ninth Circuit Form 12 so that petitioner may file an application for leave to file a second or successive petition in the Court of Appeals. 2

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?