Anthony Barker v. Dean Borders

Filing 3

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ANTHONY BARKER,
Petitioner,

11
12
13

v.
DEAN BORDERS, WARDEN,

14

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 17-4734-RSWL (PJW)
ORDER DISMISSING SECOND OR
SUCCESSIVE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION
AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

15
16

Before the Court is Petitioner’s third attempt to challenge his

17

1995 state convictions and sentence.

18

the merits in June 2001.

19

22, 2001 Order.)

20

application for a certificate of appealability.

21

January 18, 2002 Order.)

22

to raise a newly-exhausted claim that had earlier been dismissed

23

without prejudice, which the Ninth Circuit granted nunc pro tunc.

24

Construing the Ninth Circuit’s order as an authorization to file a

25

second or successive petition, the Court denied the petition on the

26

merits in 2003.

27

2003 Order.)

28

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

1

In April 2015, Petitioner filed a new application, which the

2

Court dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive petition.

3

(Barker v. Perez, CV 15-2963-RSWL (PJW), April 27, 2015 Order.)

4

Petitioner did not appeal that dismissal.

5

Absent authorization from the Ninth Circuit, Petitioner may not

6

bring another habeas petition challenging his 1995 conviction and

7

sentence.

8

147, 157 (2007) (holding district court lacks jurisdiction to consider

9

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.

10

tion from the circuit court).

11

dismissed.

12

For this reason, the Petition is

The Court further finds that Petitioner has not made a

13

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right or that

14

the court erred in its procedural ruling and, therefore, a certificate

15

of appealability will not issue in this action.

16

§ 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

17

322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED:

See 28 U.S.C.

7/13/2017

20

s/ RONALD S.W. LEW
RONALD S. W. LEW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
Presented by:
22
23
24

______________________________
PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2