Miller v. Sherman

Filing 3

ORDER dismissing Habeas Petition without prejudice as second or successive. (blank Ninth Circuit Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition mailed to Petitioner). Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 7/10/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp) (sjt).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HUTTON F. MILLER,

Case No.: 17cv1323 JAH (JLB)
Petitioner,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS
PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
AS SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE

STU SHERMAN, Warden,

15

Respondent.

16
17

On June 28, 2017 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

19

challenging his October 26, 1999, San Diego County Superior Court conviction and

20

sentence in Case No. SCE195569. (ECF No. 1 at 1.)

21

PRIOR FEDERAL HABEAS PETITIONS DENIED ON THE MERITS

22

On June 20, 2008, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas

23

Corpus in So. Dist. Ca. Civil Case No. 08cv1093 BEN (POR). (See Petition in So. Dist.

24

Ca. Civil Case No. 08cv1093 BEN (POR), ECF No. 1.) In that petition, Petitioner also

25

challenged his conviction and sentence in San Diego Superior Court case No.

26

SCE195569. On May 27, 2010, this Court dismissed the petition because it had been

27

filed after the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. (See Order filed 5/27/10 in

28
1
17cv1323 JAH (JLB)

1

So. Dist. Ca. Civil Case No. 08cv1093 BEN (POR), ECF No. 40.) Petitioner did not

2

appeal that decision.

3
4

INSTANT PETITION BARRED BY GATEKEEPER PROVISION
Petitioner is now seeking to challenge the same conviction he challenged in his

5

prior federal habeas petition. Unless a petitioner shows he or she has obtained an order

6

from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider a

7

successive petition, the petition may not be filed in the district court. See 28 U.S.C.

8

§ 2244(b); McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that dismissal

9

for failure to comply with one-year statute of limitations renders subsequent petitions

10

challenging the same conviction or sentence “second or successive” under 2244(b)).

11

Here, there is no indication the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Petitioner

12

leave to file a successive petition.

13
14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

Court of Appeals. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a blank Ninth

19

Circuit Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition together with a

20

copy of this Order.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

DATED: July 10, 2017

________________________________________
John A. Houston
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2
17cv1323 JAH (JLB)