Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02690/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02690-0/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

BOBBY JAMES WILLIAMS, Civil No. 13cv2690-JAH(KSC)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF

SUCCESSIVE PETITION

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER

PROVISION

vs.

WILLIAM KNIPP, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner, Bobby James Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a request to proceed in

forma pauperis. The Court does not rule on Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis

because this case is summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 

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 conviction in San Diego Superior Court Case No.

SCD114531. On September 19, 2005, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus in Case No. 05cv1823. In that petition, Petitioner challenged his conviction in San

Diego Superior Court Case No. SCD114531 as well. (See Petition filed Sept. 19, 2005 in Case

No. 05cv1823-JM(JMA), ECF No. 1 at 5, 42.) On September 22, 2006, this Court dismissed

that petition as time barred. (See Order filed Sept. 22, 2006 in Case No. 05cv1823-JM(JMA),

ECF No. 31.) Petitioner has not appealed that determination.

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\13cv2690 Gatekeeper Dismiss.wpd, 111413 -1- 13cv2690

Case 3:13-cv-02690-JAH-KSC Document 3 Filed 11/14/13 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

Petitioner now seeks 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); Murray v. Greiner, 394 F.3d

78 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that dismissal for failure to comply with the one-year statute of

limitations renders subsequent petitions challenging the same conviction or sentence "second or

successive" under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); Reyes v, Vaughn, 276 F.Supp.2d 1027, 1029 (C.D. Cal.

2003) (same). 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 this 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 shall forward for Petitioner’s convenience a blank Ninth Circuit Application for

Leave to File Second or Successive Petition along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 14, 2013 _________________________________________

 HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON

 United States District Judge

CC: ALL PARTIES

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\13cv2690 Gatekeeper Dismiss.wpd, 111413 -2- 13cv2690

Case 3:13-cv-02690-JAH-KSC Document 3 Filed 11/14/13 Page 2 of 2