Opinion
NO. CV 18-2296-SVW(E)
05-23-2018
CLIFFORD BRENT THOMAS, Petitioner, v. M. MARTEL, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Petitioner filed a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody" on March 21, 2018. The Petition challenges a 1998 Pasadena Superior Court conviction in case No. GA032098. Petitioner previously challenged this same conviction in a habeas corpus petition filed in this Court in 2000. See Thomas v. Castro, CV 00-10989-LGB(E) ("the prior habeas action"). On August 8, 2001, this Court entered Judgment in the prior habeas action, denying and dismissing the prior petition with prejudice. /// /// ///
The Court must dismiss the present Petition in accordance with 28 U.S.C. section 2244(b) (as amended by the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996"). Section 2244(b) requires that a petitioner seeking to file a "second or successive" habeas petition first obtain authorization from the court of appeals. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (where petitioner did not receive authorization from Court of Appeals before filing second or successive petition, "the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain [the petition]"); Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1111 (9th Cir. 2000) ("the prior-appellate-review mechanism set forth in § 2244(b) requires the permission of the court of appeals before 'a second or successive habeas application under § 2254' may be commenced"). Petitioner evidently has not yet obtained authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Consequently, this Court cannot entertain the present Petition. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. at 157; see also Remsen v. Att'y Gen. of Calif., 471 Fed. App'x 571, 571 (9th Cir. 2012) (if a petitioner fails to obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals to file a second or successive petition, "the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition and should dismiss it.") (citation omitted).
This Court previously has rebuffed several attempts by Petitioner to bring a "second or successive" habeas petition challenging the judgment in Pasadena Superior Court case number GA032098. See Thomas v. Yates, CV 07-3073-SVW (E); Thomas v. Yates, CV 11-7643-SCW (E); Thomas v. Duffy, CV 14-4929-SVW (E). --------
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is denied and dismissed without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
DATED: May 23, 2018.
/s/_________
STEPHEN V. WILSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PRESENTED this 21st day of March, 2018, by: /s/_________
CHARLES F. EICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE