Best v. Matevovsian

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING 15 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 02/02/2018. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JASON BEST,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:17-cv-01087-DAD-SKO
Petitioner,

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

A. MATEVOUSIAN,
(Doc. No. 15)
Respondent.

16
17

On December 26, 2017, this court issued an order adopting the findings and

18

recommendations of the assigned magistrate judge and dismissing this federal habeas action as a

19

second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. No. 13.) On January 11, 2018,

20

petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting that the court had failed to consider his

21

actual innocence argument. (Doc. No. 15.)

22

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is not well taken. This court previously considered

23

petitioner’s argument that he was asserting an actual innocence claim but found that—regardless

24

of its merit—petitioner had “an unobstructed procedural shot” at presenting his claims. (See Doc.

25

No. 13 at 2) (quoting Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore,

26

regardless of petitioner’s professed innocence, this petition is a second or successive petition

27

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This court cannot entertain a second or successive petition unless the

28

petitioner has received prior approval from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C.
1

1

§ 2244(b)(3); United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding district court

2

lacks jurisdiction to consider successive § 2255 petition without prior certification from the court

3

of appeals). Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 15) is denied.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:

February 2, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2