Opinion
No. 2:16-cv-0510 KJN P
03-17-2016
ROBIN GILLEN STARR, Petitioner, v. CANO, Respondent.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
The court's records reveal that petitioner previously filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus attacking the 2009 conviction and sentence challenged in this case. Starr v. State of California, No. 2:12-cv-0457 MCE KJN (E.D. Cal.). The previous application was dismissed on December 5, 2012 as untimely. Li, ECF No. 101. "[D]ismissal of a habeas petition as untimely constitutes a disposition on the merits and [ ] a further petition challenging the same conviction [is] 'second or successive' for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)." McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Murray v. Greiner, 394 F.3d 78, 81 (2d Cir. 2005) (dismissal of habeas petition as time barred constitutes an adjudication on the merits that renders future petitions under § 2254 challenging the same conviction 'second or successive' petitions under § 2244(b)."). Becauser petitioner challenges the same judgment now that he previously challenged and which was adjudicated on the merits, the petition now pending is second or successive.
Before petitioner can proceed with the instant application, he must move in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Therefore, petitioner's application must be dismissed without prejudice to its re-filing upon obtaining authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted;
2. The Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. and
IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: March 17, 2016 /star0510.succ
/s/_________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE