Summary
affirming district court's dismissal of § 2254 petition as second or successive
Summary of this case from Youngblood v. Superior CourtOpinion
No. 13-17288
07-27-2015
JESSE L. YOUNGBLOOD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF BUTTE CO.; STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondents - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01490-GGH MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Gregory G. Hollows, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appellant consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.
Jesse L. Youngblood appeals from the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as second or successive. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, see Wentzell v. Neven, 674 F.3d 1124, 1126 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
Youngblood contends that the district court should not have deemed his habeas petition second or successive under section 2244(b) because his first habeas petition was not decided on the merits but rather dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. As Youngblood concedes, this argument is foreclosed by McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009). We are bound by that decision. See Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1171 (9th Cir. 2001) ("Once a panel resolves an issue in a precedential opinion, the matter is deemed resolved, unless overruled by the court itself sitting en banc, or by the Supreme Court.").
AFFIRMED.