Sunday v. Davis
Filing
10
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. The instant petition is DISMISSED as second or successive, the filing of which has not been authorized by the Court of Appeals. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 04/27/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
ROMAN SUNDAY,
Petitioner,
12
13
14
15
Case No. 16-cv-06901-WHO (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
R. DAVIS,
Respondent.
16
17
18
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Roman Sunday has filed a habeas petition challenging the same state
19
convictions he challenged in a prior (and now closed) habeas action, Sunday v. Sisto,
20
No. C 07-05308 SBA. The instant petition will be dismissed as second or successive to the
21
prior petition. If Sunday wishes to file a successive habeas petition, he must obtain
22
permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
23
BACKGROUND
24
Sunday’s prior habeas petition was dismissed as untimely, and judgment was
25
entered in favor of respondent, in September 2010. (Sunday, No. C 07-05308 SBA, Dkt.
26
Nos. 30 and 31.) Sunday appealed, but the Ninth Circuit terminated his appeal when it
27
declined to issue a certificate of appealability. (Id., Dkt. No. 41.) Sunday filed a petition
28
for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied. (Id., Dkt. No. 43.)
1
DISCUSSION
2
The instant petition is barred by the rule against filing a second or successive
3
petition. As noted, in 2007 Sunday filed a petition regarding the same convictions at issue
4
in the instant action, which was dismissed as untimely. A dismissal for untimeliness
5
“constitutes a disposition on the merits.” McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir.
6
2009). Therefore, a “further petition challenging the same conviction would be ‘second or
7
successive’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).” Id.
8
9
In order to file a second or successive petition, Sunday must obtain an order from
the Court of Appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(A). Sunday has not shown that he has received such authorization.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Accordingly, the instant petition must be dismissed as second or successive, the filing of
12
which has not been authorized by the Court of Appeals.
13
Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED.
CONCLUSION
14
15
16
The instant petition is DISMISSED as second or successive, the filing of which has
not been authorized by the Court of Appeals.
17
A certificate of appealability will not issue. Sunday has not shown “that jurists of
18
reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
19
constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district
20
court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
21
The order to show cause (Dkt. No. 6) is DISCHARGED.
22
The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent, and close the file.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated: April 27, 2017
_________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
2
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?