Anthony Barker v. Dean Borders
ORDER DISMISSING SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. (See document for further details.) (sbou)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DEAN BORDERS, WARDEN,
CASE NO. CV 17-4734-RSWL (PJW)
ORDER DISMISSING SECOND OR
SUCCESSIVE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION
AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
Before the Court is Petitioner’s third attempt to challenge his
1995 state convictions and sentence.
the merits in June 2001.
22, 2001 Order.)
application for a certificate of appealability.
January 18, 2002 Order.)
to raise a newly-exhausted claim that had earlier been dismissed
without prejudice, which the Ninth Circuit granted nunc pro tunc.
Construing the Ninth Circuit’s order as an authorization to file a
second or successive petition, the Court denied the petition on the
merits in 2003.
Petitioner’s applications for a certificate of appealability.
His first petition was denied on
(Barker v. Garcia, CV 01-1790-CM (CT), June
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals then denied his
(CCA No. 01-56312,
Thereafter, Petitioner moved for permission
(Barker v. Garcia, CV 02-6040-TJH (CT), January 13,
The Court and the Ninth Circuit subsequently denied
In April 2015, Petitioner filed a new application, which the
Court dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive petition.
(Barker v. Perez, CV 15-2963-RSWL (PJW), April 27, 2015 Order.)
Petitioner did not appeal that dismissal.
Absent authorization from the Ninth Circuit, Petitioner may not
bring another habeas petition challenging his 1995 conviction and
147, 157 (2007) (holding district court lacks jurisdiction to consider
the merits of a second or successive petition absent prior authoriza-
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244; see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S.
tion from the circuit court).
For this reason, the Petition is
The Court further finds that Petitioner has not made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right or that
the court erred in its procedural ruling and, therefore, a certificate
of appealability will not issue in this action.
§ 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
See 28 U.S.C.
s/ RONALD S.W. LEW
RONALD S. W. LEW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?