Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01758/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01758-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN ANTHONY SEXTON, Civil No. 12-1758 LAB (PCL)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF

SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)

GATEKEEPER PROVISION

vs.

URIBE, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner, Steven A. Sexton, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This case is summarily dismissed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) as indicated below. 

PETITION BARRED BY GATEKEEPER PROVISION

The instant Petition is not the first Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Petitioner has

submitted to this Court challenging his May 23, 2002, conviction in San Diego Superior Court

case No. SCE 220004. On May 14, 2009, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus in case No. 09cv1069. In that petition, Petitioner challenged his conviction in

San Diego Superior Court case No. SCE 220004 as well. On July 19, 2010, this Court granted

respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition for Petitioner’s failure to file his

petition within the one-year statue of limitations. (See Order filed July 19, 2010 in case No.

09cv1069 W (POR) [Doc. No. 18].) Petitioner did not appeal that determination. 

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv1758 dismiss.wpd, 72312 -1- 12cv1758

Case 3:12-cv-01758-LAB-PCL Document 2 Filed 07/23/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dismissal for failure to complywith the one-yearstatute of limitations renders subsequent

petitions challenging the same conviction or sentence “second or successive” under 2244(b). 

McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009); Reyes v. Vaughn, 276 F.Supp.2d 1027, 1029

(C. D. Cal. 2003) (same); Bridgwater v. Scriben, 2007 WL 2262760 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2007)

(same). Petitioner is now seeking to challenge the same conviction he challenged in his prior

federal habeas petition. Unless a petitioner shows he or she has obtained an Order from the

appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider a successive petition, the

petition may not be filed in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Here, there is no

indication the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Petitioner leave to file a successive

petition.

CONCLUSION

Because there is no indication Petitioner has obtained permission from the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals to file a successive petition, this Court cannot consider his Petition. 

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice to Petitioner filing a petition

in this court if he obtains the necessary order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The

Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank Ninth Circuit Application for Leave to File

Second or Successive Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 20, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv1758 dismiss.wpd, 72312 -2- 12cv1758

Case 3:12-cv-01758-LAB-PCL Document 2 Filed 07/23/12 Page 2 of 2