Washington v. People of California, The

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on 10/10/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2013)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
ROBERT WASHINGTON,

No. C 13-03363 SBA (PR)

6
Petitioner,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

7
v.
8
PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA,
9

Respondent.

United States District Court Court
United States District
For the Northern District ofDistrict of California
For the Northern California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

/

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
Petitioner filed a previous petition for a writ of habeas corpus with this Court, challenging
the same conviction and sentence. See Washington v. Lamarque, Case No. C 02-2146 MJJ (PR)
(2002 petition). The Court denied the 2002 petition on the merits. Petitioner also filed two
subsequent petitions, which were denied as successive. See Washington v. State of California, Case
No. C 09-4355 SBA (PR); Washington v. Haviland, Case No. C 09-0978 SBA (PR). More recently,
on November 20, 2012, Petitioner filed another subsequent petition, which was also denied as
successive. See Washington v. People of California, Case No. C 12-5930 SBA (PR).
The Court finds the present petition is a second or successive petition attacking the same
conviction and sentence as Petitioner's 2002 petition and three subsequent petitions. A second or
successive petition containing new claims may not be filed in the district court unless 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). Petitioner has not done so.1 Accordingly,

25
26
27
1

28

Petitioner claims that he "filed in the Court of Appeal on the request of this Court to seek
permission that would allow Petitioner to proceed in this Court." (Docket No. 1 at 2.) However,
Petitioner does not indicate that he obtained an order from the Ninth Circuit authorizing this Court to
consider the instant petition.

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the petition is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2

2244(b) without prejudice to filing a new habeas action if Petitioner obtains the necessary order

3

from the Court of Appeal. Based solely on Petitioner's lack of financial resources, his application to

4

proceed IFP (docket no. 6) is GRANTED. The Court has rendered its final decision on this matter;

5

therefore, this Order TERMINATES Petitioner's case and all pending motions (docket nos. 1, 7) are

6

DENIED as moot.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

10/10/2013

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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
G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.13\Washington3363.Dismiss(Successive)-revised.wpd

2