ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/15/2013)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAMES E. BRYANT,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
No. C 12-2821 SI (pr)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
James E. Bryant, who apparently was on parole or in custody on a parole violation, filed
a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his parole.
The court reviewed the petition and dismissed it with leave to amend. Bryant then filed an
amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. The amended petition changes the focus of the
action as it concerns errors that occurred in his sentencing in 1982 in San Francisco County
Superior Court. He alleges, among other things, that the court clerk made purposeful errors on
the abstract of judgment that caused him to spend extra time in prison, the superior court judge
erred in allowing a prosecution after five years, and the superior court judge did not give him
the right amount of time credits.
The petition is not Bryant's first federal habeas petition concerning his 1982 conviction
and sentence from the San Francisco County Superior Court. One petition was denied on the
merits: Bryant v. Marshall, No C 91-1218 SBA. A later petition was dismissed as second or
successive without petitioner having first obtained permission to file such a petition: Bryant v.
Fairman, No. C 99-4624 MHP. Another later petition was dismissed as second or successive
without petitioner having first obtained permission to file such a petition: Bryant v. Allison, No.
C 10-2379 JF. Many of the claims in the current petition repeat claims asserted in the 2010
action. See Bryant v. Allison, No. C 10-2379 JF (petition for writ of habeas corpus, pp. 3-4).
A second or successive petition may not be filed in this court unless the petitioner first
obtains from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ("Ninth Circuit") an order
authorizing this court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Bryant has not
obtained such an order from the Ninth Circuit. This court will not entertain a new petition from
Bryant until he first obtains permission from the Ninth Circuit to file such a petition. This action
is DISMISSED without prejudice to Bryant filing a petition in this court after he obtains the
necessary order from the Ninth Circuit.
If Bryant wants to attempt to obtain the necessary order from the Ninth Circuit, he should
very clearly mark the first page of his document as a "MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING
DISTRICT COURT TO CONSIDER SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT
TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)" rather than labeling it as a habeas petition because the Ninth
Circuit clerk's office is apt to simply forward to this court any document labeled as a habeas
petition. He also should mail the motion to the Ninth Circuit (at 95 Seventh Street, San
Francisco, CA 94103), rather than to this court. In his motion to the Ninth Circuit, he should
explain how he meets the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
The clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 15, 2013
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?