Gilbert Robles Hernandez Jr v. San Francisco

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY by Judge Manuel L. Real. See order for details. (jy)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

GILBERT HERNANDEZ ROBLES, JR., )
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
SAN FRANCISCO,
)
)
Respondent.
)
)

CASE NO. ED CV 14-1123-R (PJW)
ORDER DISMISSING
SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE HABEAS CORPUS
PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY

15
16

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

17

1996 state conviction for second degree murder.

18

was denied as untimely.

19

April 26, 2012 Order Accepting Report and Recommendation of United

20

States Magistrate Judge.

21

See McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 2009).

22

Thereafter, Petitioner filed four more petitions, challenging the same

23

conviction, which were dismissed as second or successive.

24

v. United States, ED CV 13-284-R (PJW), March 6, 2013 Order Dismissing

25

Second or Successive Petition; Robles v. Biter, ED CV 14-662-R (PJW),

26

April 14, 2014 Order Dismissing Second or Successive Petition; Robles

27

v. Biter, ED CV 14-816-R (PJW), April 30, 2014 Order Dismissing Second

28

or Successive Petition; Robles v. Parent, ED CV 14-1046-R (PJW), May

His first petition

See Robles v. Court, ED CV 12-158-R (PJW),

This constituted a decision on the merits.

See Robles

1

30, 2014 Order Dismissing Second or Successive Petition.

2

petition, his sixth, is also second and/or successive and is subject

3

to dismissal on that ground.

4

at 1029-30 (holding dismissal of habeas petition for untimeliness

5

renders subsequent petitions second or successive).

6

from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court does not have

7

jurisdiction to entertain a second or successive petition.

8

U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A).

9

The instant

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244; McNabb, 576 F.3d

Absent an order

See 28

For that reason, the Petition is dismissed.

Further, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a

10

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right or that it

11

erred in its procedural ruling and, therefore, a certificate of

12

appealability will not issue in this action.

13

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

14

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

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

See 28 U.S.C.

DATED: JUNE 11, 2014.

17
18
19
MANUEL L. REAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
Presented by:
22
23
24
25

PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

C:\Temp\notesD30550\robles_Ord_dismiss_successive pet.wpd

2