Elbert Lee Vaught v. Paramo

Filing 3

ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge David O. Carter. The Petition is denied and dismissed without prejudice. (sp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

ELBERT LEE VAUGHT,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
WARDEN PARAMO,
)
)
Respondent.
)
)
______________________________)

NO. SA CV 14-43-DOC(E)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

17
18

Petitioner filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a

19

Person in State Custody” on January 13, 2014.

The Petition challenges

20

the criminal judgment in Orange County Superior Court case No. 96-HFO-

21

215 (Petition at 2).

22

judgment in a prior habeas corpus petition filed in this Court.

23

Vaught v. Gomez, SA CV 99-284-GLT(E).

24

entered judgment in Vaught v. Gomez, SA CV 99-284-GLT(E), denying and

25

dismissing the prior petition with prejudice.

Petitioner previously challenged this same
See

On May 28, 1999, this Court

26
27
28

The Court must dismiss the present Petition in accordance with
28 U.S.C. section 2244(b) (as amended by the “Antiterrorism and

1

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996”).

Section 2244(b) requires that

2

a petitioner seeking to file a “second or successive” habeas petition

3

first obtain authorization from the court of appeals.

4

Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (where petitioner did not receive

5

authorization from Court of Appeal before filing second or successive

6

petition, “the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain

7

[the petition]”); Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1111 (9th Cir.

8

2000) (“the prior-appellate-review mechanism set forth in § 2244(b)

9

requires the permission of the court of appeals before ‘a second or

See Burton v.

10

successive habeas application under § 2254’ may be commenced”).

11

petition need not be repetitive to be “second or successive,” within

12

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. section 2244(b).

13

Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 920-21 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 965

14

(1998); Calbert v. Marshall, 2008 WL 649798, at *2-4 (C.D. Cal. Mar.

15

6, 2008).

16

from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

17

cannot entertain the present Petition.

18

U.S. at 157.1

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

See, e.g., Thompson v.

Petitioner evidently has not yet obtained authorization
Consequently, this Court
See Burton v. Stewart, 549

25
26
27
28

A

1

This Court rebuffed two previous attempts by Petitioner
to bring a “second or successive” habeas petition challenging the
judgment in Orange County case No. 96-HFO-215. See Vaught v.
Warden, SA CV 00-1262-DOC(E); Vaught v. Allison, SA CV 11-833DOC(E).
2

1
2

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Petition is denied and
dismissed without prejudice.

3
4

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

5
6

DATED:

January 15, 2014

7
8
9

__________________________________
DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14

PRESENTED this 14th day of

15

January, 2014, by:

16
17
18

/S/
CHARLES F. EICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3