Opinion
No. 08-17776.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed April 19, 2010.
Joe Sherman, Davis, CA, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Morrison C. England, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01645-MCE.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
California state prisoner Joe Sherman appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sherman's petition as successive because it was his second petition challenging the same condition of his probation, and Sherman had not obtained an order from this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). See Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm the district court.
We construe Sherman's additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.