Case ID: f-appx_171/html/0588-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph Lawrence LEVESQUE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY, Warden; et al., Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 03-16454.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2006.
    
    Decided March 16, 2006.
    Robert Beles, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Glenn R. Pruden, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joseph Lawrence Levesque appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as second or successive. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Levesque mistakenly contends that the district court erred by finding that the dismissal of his prior federal habeas petition as time-barred rendered his instant petition successive. See Henderson v. Lampert, 396 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that a prior petition dismissed based on state procedural default is a determination on the merits rendering a subsequent petition successive).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.