Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01982/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01982-0/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

HARVEY E. LARSON, Civil

No. 16cv1982-WQH (BLM)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF

SUCCESSIVE PETITION

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER

PROVISION

vs.

STU SHERMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner Harvey E. Larson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition

for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his sentence 

arising from his conviction in San Diego Superior Court Case No. SCE195230. (See Pet.

at 1.) Petitioner has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) The

Court does not rule on Petitioner’s in forma pauperis status because 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 sentence in San Diego Superior Court Case

No. SCE195230. On August 21, 2009, Petitioner filed in this Court a Second Amended

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his conviction and sentence in San

Diego Superior Court Case No. SCE195230. (See Larson v. Carrasco, So.Dist.Ca. Case

I:\Chambers Hayes\SIGNED ORDERS\16cv1982-Successive.wpd, 81116 -1- 16cv1982

Case 3:16-cv-01982-WQH-BLM Document 3 Filed 08/11/16 Page 1 of 3
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

No. 09cv0745-L (PCL), ECF No. 9).) On February 25, 2011, this Court denied the

petition as barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d),

and denied a certificate of appealability. (See Larson v. Carrasco, So.Dist.Ca. Case No.

09cv0745-L (PCL), ECF No. 51).) Petitioner appealed that dismissal, and on August 23,

2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability and

dismissed the appeal. (See Larson v. Carrasco, So.Dist.Ca. Case No. 09cv0745-L (PCL),

ECF No. 59).) 

Petitioner then challenged the same conviction and sentence in a habeas petition

filed in this Court on September 3, 2014. (See Larson v. Alison, So.Dist.Ca. Case No.

14cv2083-JAH (JMA), ECF No. 1).) The Court dismissed that petition as successive on

September 10, 2014. (See Larson v. Alison, So.Dist.Ca. Case No. 14cv2083-JAH (JMA),

ECF No. 3).) Petitioner again challenged the same sentence in a habeas petition filed in

this Court on April 26, 2016, which was dismissed as successive on May 11, 2016. (See

Larson v. Alison, So.Dist.Ca. Case No. 14cv2083-JAH (JMA), ECF Nos. 1, 3).) 

Petitioner is now seeking to challenge the same sentence he challenged in his prior

federal habeas petitions, claiming that the manner in which sentence credits are applied

to prisoners sentenced under California’s Three Strikes law, such as himself, violate his

federal Constitutional rights. (Pet. at 6.) A petition is second or successive if the claim

presented was ripe for review at the time the first petition was filed, even if the petitioner

was unaware of the existence of the claim. United States v. Buenrostro, 638 F.3d 720,

725 (9th Cir. 2011). A petition is not second or successive if the petitioner did not have

an opportunity to raise his claim at the time he filed his first petition. Hill v. Alaska, 297

F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2002). Because Petitioner “could have raised his claim in his first

petition,” the instant petition is second or successive. Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d

1270, 1273 (9th Cir. 2001); see also McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir.

2009) (holding that a prior dismissal of a previous petition for failure to comply with the

one-year statute of limitations renders subsequent petitions challenging the same

conviction or sentence “second or successive” under 2244(b)). Unless a petitioner shows

I:\Chambers Hayes\SIGNED ORDERS\16cv1982-Successive.wpd, 81116 -2- 16cv1982

Case 3:16-cv-01982-WQH-BLM Document 3 Filed 08/11/16 Page 2 of 3
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

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). Petitioner does not indicate that he has received

permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive

petition. (Pet. at 5.) 

CONCLUSION

Because Petitioner has not obtained permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of

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

States v. Lopez, 577 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th Cir. 2009) (“If the petitioner does not first

obtain our authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the second or

successive application.”) 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: August 11, 2016

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

I:\Chambers Hayes\SIGNED ORDERS\16cv1982-Successive.wpd, 81116 -3- 16cv1982

Case 3:16-cv-01982-WQH-BLM Document 3 Filed 08/11/16 Page 3 of 3