Simmons v. Dickinson

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 12/30/2011 ORDERING that petitioner's 7 request to proceed IFP is GRANTED; and petitioner shall, within 30 days, demonstrate either that this petition is not second or successive or submit evidence that the appeallate court has authorized this court to consider the petition. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CHRISTOPHER ISAAC SIMMONS,
Petitioner,

11
12
13

No. 11-cv-2639-MCE-JFM (HC)

vs.
KATHLEEN DICKINSON,
Respondent.

14

ORDER
/

15

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of

16
17

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma

18

pauperis.

19
20

Examination of the affidavit reveals petitioner is unable to afford the costs of this
action. Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

21

The court has reviewed the petition as required by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

22

Section 2254 Proceedings, and finds that the petition appears to be second or successive. Thus,

23

petitioner must show either that the petition is not second or successive or that he has obtained

24

permission to proceed from the appellate court.

25

A petition is second or successive if it makes “claims contesting the same custody

26

imposed by the same judgment of a state court” that the petitioner previously challenged, and on
1

1

which the federal court issued a decision on the merits. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007);

2

see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-86 (2000). Before filing a second or successive

3

petition in a district court, a petitioner must obtain from the appellate court “an order authorizing

4

the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Without an order

5

from the appellate court, the district court is without jurisdiction to consider a second or

6

successive petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. 147.
In the present action, petitioner challenges a 1998 conviction in the Sacramento

7
8

County Superior Court for seven counts of burglary, one count of possession of a controlled

9

substance, one count of possession of stolen property and one count of driving a vehicle without

10

the owner’s consent, for which he was sentenced to 175 years to life imprisonment. Pet. at 1.

11

The court has examined its records, and finds that petitioner challenged the same conviction in

12

this court in case number 2:02-cv-0794-JAM-JFM. That petition was denied on the merits on

13

April 2, 2008. Simmons v. Lamarque et al., Case No. 2:02-cv-0794, Doc. Nos. 56-57.

14

Therefore, it appears that petitioner challenges the same judgment now that he previously

15

challenged and which was adjudicated on the merits. Thus, it appears that the October 6, 2011

16

petition is second or successive. Petitioner offers no evidence that the appellate court has

17

authorized this court to consider a second or successive petition.

18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and

20

2. Petitioner shall, within 30 days of the date of this order, demonstrate either that

21

this petition is not second or successive or submit evidence that the appellate court has

22

authorized this court to consider the petition. Petitioner’s failure to comply with this order will

23

/////

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////
2

1

/////

2

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed upon the ground that petitioner has

3

without authorization filed a second or successive petition.

4

DATED: December 30, 2011.

5
6
7
8

/014;simm2639.114.osc

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3