Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02265/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02265-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN C. DUNCKHURST,

Petitioner,

v.

BAUGHMAN,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-2265 CKD P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 

302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Petitioner has submitted a declaration that makes the 

showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, petitioner may proceed with this action 

in forma pauperis. Petitioner has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to conduct all 

proceedings in this action. (ECF No. 6.)

Petitioner challenges his 2005 conviction in the Shasta County Superior Court for vehicle 

theft and possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner, for which he was sentenced to a state 

prison term of 33 years to life. Court records reveal that petitioner challenged this same 

conviction in an earlier action, Dunckhurst v. Lopez, No. 2:08-cv-0974 WBS DAD (E.D. Cal.), 

which was dismissed as time-barred on May 29, 2009. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit affirmed the district court’s order of dismissal on January 10, 2011. Id., ECF No. 38.

Case 2:16-cv-02265-CKD Document 8 Filed 10/14/16 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

2

A petition is second or successive if it makes “claims contesting the same custody 

imposed by the same judgment of a state court” that the petitioner previously challenged, and on 

which the federal court issued a decision on the merits. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 

(2007). A second or subsequent habeas petition is not considered “successive” if the initial 

habeas petition was dismissed for a technical or procedural reason. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 485–487 (2000). However, in McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028,1030 (9th Cir. 2009), 

the Ninth Circuit held that dismissal of a habeas petition for failure to comply with the AEDPA 

statute of limitations renders subsequent petitions challenging the same conviction successive. 

Because petitioner’s prior federal habeas petition was dismissed for untimeliness, the instant 

petition is successive.

Before filing a successive petition in district court, a petitioner must obtain from the 

appellate court “an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(b)(3)(A). Without an order from the appellate court, the district court is without jurisdiction 

to consider a second or successive petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. at 152, 157. As petitioner 

offers no evidence that the appellate court has authorized this court to consider a successive 

petition challenging his 2005 conviction, this action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

See Dunckhurst v. Adams, No. 2:10-cv-1405 GEB EFB (E.D. Cal.), Order dated Sept. 22, 2011 

dismissing habeas challenge to 2005 conviction as successive. In light of the above, petitioner’s 

motion for appointment of counsel in this action will be summarily denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted; 

2. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) is denied; and 

3. The petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and 

4. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. 

Dated: October 14, 2016

2 / dunc2265.succ_sol

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-02265-CKD Document 8 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 2