Garces v. The People of the State of California

Filing 7

Summary Dismissal of Successive Petition. 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. The Clerk of Court shall attach a blank Ninth Circuit Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 5/4/17.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (Ninth Circuit Application mailed to petitioner)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

Case No. 17cv0598 GPC (KSC)
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF
SUCCESSIVE PETITION
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER
PROVISION

v.
PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.

15
16
17

Petitioner has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

18

§ 2254. For the reasons discussed below, the case is summarily dismissed pursuant to 28

19

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
PETITION BARRED BY GATEKEEPER PROVISION

20
21

The instant Petition is not the first Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Petitioner

22

has submitted to this Court challenging his March 3, 2004 conviction in San Diego County

23

Superior Court case number SCD133238. On August 12, 2009, Petitioner filed a Petition

24

for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court, in case No. 09cv1767. In that petition, Petitioner

25

challenged his March 3, 2004 conviction as well. On June 9, 2011, this Court denied the

26

petition on the merits. (See Order filed June 7, 2011 in case No. 09cv1767 H (CAB) [ECF

27

No. 30].) On September 13, 2011 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s

28

///
1
17cv0598 GPC (KSC)

1

application to file a second or successive petition. (See Order in Garces v. Yates, No. 11-

2

71887 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2011).)

3

Petitioner is now seeking to challenge the sentence imposed as a result of the

4

conviction he challenged in his prior federal habeas petition. Unless a petitioner shows he

5

or she has obtained an Order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district

6

court to consider a successive petition, the petition may not be filed in the district court.

7

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007) (a

8

petition is successive where it challenges “the same custody imposed by the same judgment

9

of a state court” as a prior petition). A successive application is permissible “only if it rests

10

on a new rule of constitutional law, facts that were previously unavailable, or facts that

11

would be sufficient to show constitutional error in the petitioner's conviction.” 28 U.S.C.

12

§ 2244(b)(2). “Even if a petitioner can demonstrate that he qualifies for one of these

13

exceptions, he must seek authorization from the court of appeals before filing his new

14

petition with the district court.” Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir.2008). Here,

15

there is no indication the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Petitioner leave to file

16

a successive petition.

17

CONCLUSION

18

Because there is no indication Petitioner has obtained permission from the Ninth

19

Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive petition, this Court cannot consider his

20

Petition. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice to Petitioner

21

filing a petition in this Court if he obtains the necessary order from the Ninth Circuit Court

22

of Appeals. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach a blank Ninth

23

Circuit Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 4, 2017

26
27
28
2
17cv0598 GPC (KSC)