From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cisneros v. Robertson

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Jun 28, 2022
22-cv-02961-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2022)

Opinion

22-cv-02961-HSG

06-28-2022

MIGUEL A. CISNEROS, Petitioner, v. JIM ROBERTSON, Respondent.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge.

On or about May 5, 2022, Petitioner filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Dkt. No. 1; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2. On May 19, 2022, the Clerk of the Court informed Petitioner that this action was deficient because he had not submitted an in forma pauperis application or paid the filing fee, and that he needed to correct the deficiency within twenty-eight days from the date of the notice to avoid dismissal. Dkt. No. 2. The deadline has passed, and Petitioner has not submitted the required documents.

The Court therefore DISMISSES this action without prejudice. Because this dismissal is without prejudice, Petitioner may move to reopen the action. Any such motion must contain either the full filing fee or a complete in forma pauperis application.

Petitioner is cautioned that a prisoner generally may not file multiple habeas petitions challenging the same conviction and sentence. A repetitive claim presented in a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). Petitioner challenged the same judgment on the same grounds in a prior petition, Cisneros v. Roberston, No. C 20-cv-7861 HSG (PR) (“Cisneros I”). If Petitioner is seeking to appeal the denial of Cisneros I, he should file a notice of appeal directly with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Petitioner is reminded that he must first obtain a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because he can take an appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1).

The Court concludes that no “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right [or] that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Cisneros v. Robertson

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Jun 28, 2022
22-cv-02961-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2022)
Case details for

Cisneros v. Robertson

Case Details

Full title:MIGUEL A. CISNEROS, Petitioner, v. JIM ROBERTSON, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Jun 28, 2022

Citations

22-cv-02961-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2022)