Gilbert Robles v. United States District Court

Filing 9

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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

GILBERT ROBLES, JR.,
Petitioner,

11
12
13

v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

14

Respondent.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. ED CV 18-327-R (PJW)
ORDER DISMISSING
SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE HABEAS CORPUS
PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY

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

17

1996 conviction for second degree murder.

18

denied as untimely.

19

26, 2012 Order Accepting Report and Recommendation of United States

20

Magistrate Judge.

21

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

22

numerous petitions since then have been dismissed as second or

23

successive.

24

6, 2013 Order; Robles v. Biter, ED CV 14-662-R (PJW), April 14, 2014

25

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

26

Robles v. Parent, ED CV 14-1046-R (PJW), May 30, 2014 Order; Robles v.

27

Supreme Court, ED CV 14-1927-R (PJW), September 22, 2014 Order; Robles

28

v. District Court, ED CV 16-161-R (PJW), September 9, 2016 Order.)

His first petition was

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

This constituted a decision on the merits.

See

Petitioner’s

(See Robles v. United States, ED CV 13-284-R (PJW), March

1

The instant petition is also second and/or successive and is subject

2

to dismissal on that ground.

3

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

4

renders subsequent petitions second or successive).

5

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

6

jurisdiction to entertain a second or successive petition.

7

U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A).

8
9

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

10

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

11

appealability will not issue in this action.

12

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

13

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

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

See 28 U.S.C.

DATED: February 22, 2018.

16
17
18
MANUEL L. REAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
Presented by:
23
24
25
26

PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28

C:\Users\imartine\AppData\Local\Temp\notesC7A056\Ord_dismiss_successive pet.wpd

2