Weaver v. McEwen et al
Filing
4
ORDER DISMISSING Habeas Petition without Prejudice as Second or Successive: the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice to Petitioner filing a petition in this court if he obtains the necessary order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 12/6/11.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(form sent)(lmt)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RICKEY LENELL WEAVER,
12
13
14
Civil No.
11-2701 JLS (RBB)
Petitioner,
ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS
PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
AS SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE
vs.
L.S. MCEWEN, Warden, et al.,
15
Respondents.
16
17
On November 14, 2011, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for
18
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In this action Petitioner is challenging his
19
January 29, 1997 San Diego County Superior Court conviction and sentence in Case No.
20
SCD118179 (See Pet. at 1.)
21
PRIOR FEDERAL HABEAS PETITIONS DENIED ON THE MERITS
22
On October 21, 2002, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
23
in SO. DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE NO. 02cv2073 BEN (NLS). (See Petition in SO. DIST. CA. CIVIL
24
CASE NO. 02cv2073 BEN (NLS), filed 10/21/02.) In that petition, Petitioner challenged his
25
conviction and sentence in San Diego Superior Court case No. SCD118179 On February 7,
26
2006, this Court dismissed the petition because it had been filed after the expiration of the one-
27
year statute of limitations. (See Order in SO. DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE NO. 02cv2073 BEN (NLS),
28
filed 2/7/06 [ECF No. 28].) Petitioner appealed that determination. On May 16, 2007, the Ninth
-1-
11cv2701
1
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision. (See Order in Weaver v.
2
Alameida, No. 06-55501 (9th Cir. May 16, 2007) [ECF No. 36].)
3
INSTANT PETITION BARRED BY GATEKEEPER PROVISION
4
Petitioner is now seeking to challenge the same conviction he challenged in his prior
5
federal habeas petition. Unless a petitioner shows he or she has obtained an order from the
6
appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider a successive petition, the
7
petition may not be filed in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); Murray v. Greiner, 394
8
F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that dismissal for failure to comply with one-year statute of
9
limitations renders subsequent petitions challenging the same conviction or sentence “second
10
or successive” under 2244(b)); Reyes v. Vaughn, 276 F.Supp.2d 1027, 1029 (C. D. Cal. 2003)
11
(same). Here, there is no indication the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Petitioner
12
leave to file a successive petition.
CONCLUSION
13
14
Because there is no indication Petitioner has obtained permission from the Ninth Circuit
15
Court of Appeals to file a successive petition, this Court cannot consider his Petition.
16
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice to Petitioner filing a petition
17
in this court if he obtains the necessary order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
18
(Attached for Petitioner’s convenience is a blank Ninth Circuit Application for Leave to File
19
Second or Successive Petition.)
20
The Clerk shall close the file.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
25
DATED: December 6, 2011
Honorable Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge
26
27
28
-2-
11cv2701
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?