Opinion
Case No. 3:12-cv-00594-MMD-WGC
05-14-2013
STEVEN ANTHONY HAAG, Petitioner, v. ROBERT LeGRAND, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by a Nevada state prisoner. Plaintiff has paid the $5.00 filing fee for this action. (ECF No. 1).
The petition in the instant action challenges petitioner's state conviction in Nevada state case number 03CR1520. Petitioner previously challenged this same conviction in this Court, filed under case number 3:07-00132-RCJ-RAM. The petition in case number 3:07-00132-RCJ-RAM was reviewed on the merits and denied by order filed March 4, 2010. (Dkt. no. 45.) Judgment was entered on March 8, 2010. (Dkt. no. 46.) Petitioner appealed. (Dkt. no. 47.) On March 9, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied petitioner a certificate of appealability. (Dkt. no. 51.)
"Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A). The instant petition is a successive petition, which requires petitioner to seek and obtain leave of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal to pursue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) et seq. In the prior habeas case in which petitioner challenged his conviction (case number 3:07-00132-RCJ-RAM), the Court reviewed the merits of the petition and denied the petition by order filed March 4, 2010. (ECF No. 45). Because the prior habeas corpus petition was decided on the merits, the instant habeas petition is a successive petition. McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 2009). Petitioner has not presented this Court with proof that he has obtained leave to file a successive petition from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, the instant petition will be dismissed as successive.
In order to proceed with any appeal, petitioner must receive a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 22; 9th Cir. R. 22-1; Allen v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 950-951 (9th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Mikels, 236 F.3d 550, 551-52 (9th Cir. 2001). Generally, a petitioner must make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" to warrant a certificate of appealability. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). "The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Id. (quoting Slack, 529 U.S. at 484). In order to meet this threshold inquiry, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues differently; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Id.
Pursuant to the December 1, 2009, amendment to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and 2255 Cases, district courts are required to rule on the certificate of appealability in the order disposing of a proceeding adversely to the petitioner or movant, rather than waiting for a notice of appeal and request for certificate of appealability to be filed. Rule 11(a). This Court has considered the issues raised by petitioner, with respect to whether they satisfy the standard for issuance of a certificate of appealability, and determines that none meet that standard. The Court will therefore deny petitioner a certificate of appealability.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED as a successive petition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 2) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for a copy of the docket sheet in this action (dkt. no. 3) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a printout of the CM/ECF docket in this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
________________________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE