Ellis v. Hill

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONS; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO TERMINATE ALL PENDING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/17/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2011)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 ROBERT ELLIS, Petitioner, 5 6 7 Nos. C 11-05121 CW (PR) C 11-05389 CW (PR) ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONS; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO TERMINATE ALL PENDING MOTIONS v. RICK HILL, Warden, Respondent. 8 / 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed the present pro se petitions for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1998 conviction for attempted murder. Petitioner previously challenged the same conviction in a habeas petition that was denied on the merits. (PR). See Ellis v. Roe, Case No. C 01-3141 MMC Since that denial, this Court has denied, under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Petitioner's previous attempt to present a renewed challenge to his conviction without prior approval from the Ninth Circuit. See Ellis v. Hill, Case No. C 09-00351 CW (PR). Specifically, a second or successive petition containing previously raised or new claims may not be filed in the district court unless the petitioner first obtains from the United States Court of Appeals an order authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Because Petitioner here has not obtained prior approval from the Ninth Circuit for this Court to consider his renewed challenge to his conviction in the above-titled petitions, the petitions are DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner’s filing a petition in 1 this Court if he obtains the necessary order from the Ninth 2 Circuit.1 3 4 In light of Petitioner’s lack of funds, his applications to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED. 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the above-titled petitions are DISMISSED without prejudice. Petitioner's applications to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions in the present actions, enter judgment and close the files. This Order terminates Docket nos. 2 and 3 in Case no. C 1105121 CW (PR), and Docket nos. 2 and 3 in Case no. C 11-05389. IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: 11/17/2011 16 CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 25 26 27 The gatekeeping function performed by a court of appeals applies only to a second or successive petition filed in the district court. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 662 (1996). Petitioner still may file an original successive habeas petition in the United States Supreme Court, in which case the court of appeals' permission to file is not needed. See id. at 660-61. 28 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 2 3 ROBERT ELLIS, 4 5 6 7 v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE RICK HILL et al, Defendant. 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 Case Number: CV11-05121 CW CV11-05389 CW Plaintiff, / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on November 17, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 13 14 16 Robert Ellis P35156 CSP - Old Folsom P.O. Box 715071 Represa, CA 95671 17 Dated: November 17, 2011 15 18 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?