Rigoni v. Stainer

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/23/12. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2012)

1
2
3

*E-Filed 4/23/12*

4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

No. C 12-1509 RS (PR)

JOHN WILLIAM RIGONI,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner,

13
14

v.

15

M.D. STAINER,

16

Respondent.
/

17
18
19

INTRODUCTION
This is a federal habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a pro se

20

state prisoner. The petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243

21

and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The filing fee has been paid.

22

DISCUSSION

23

In the instant petition, petitioner challenges convictions he received in the Santa Clara

24

County Superior Court. In 2010, petitioner filed a petition in this Court (No. 10-0198 RS) in

25

which he challenged the same convictions. The 2010 petition was dismissed as untimely.

26

That matter is currently on appeal. The instant petition, which alleges the same claims as

27

those raised in the 2010 petition, is, then, second or successive to the 2010 habeas petition.

28

No. C 12-1509 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

In order to file a second or successive petition, the petitioner must obtain an order

1
2

from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C.

3

§ 2244(b)(3)(A). Because petitioner has not shown that he has received such authorization,

4

the instant petition must be dismissed as second or successive to the prior-filed 2010 petition.

5

Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

6

A certificate of appealability will not issue. Reasonable jurists would not “find the

7

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v.

8

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from

9

the Court of Appeals. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent, and close the

10
11
12

file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 23, 2012
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

No. C 12-1509 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL