Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01505/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01505-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OBA LEE FRELIMO,

Petitioner,

 v.

WARDEN DERRAL ADAMS,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

No. C 08-1505 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 5 & 6)

On March 6, 2008, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed, in the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, the above-titled petition for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 10, 2008, the Eastern

District transferred the action to the Northern District, where it was assigned to the

undersigned. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the petition is subject to

dismissal because petitioner has not sought or obtained authorization to file a second or

successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).

BACKGROUND

On May 5, 1994, in the Superior Court of San Francisco County, petitioner pleaded

guilty to second degree murder. He was sentenced to a term of fifteen years to life in state

prison. 

Thereafter, petitioner filed in this district a habeas corpus petition challenging the

1994 conviction, see Frelimo v. White, C 97-0215 MMC (PR), and, on October 8, 1998, the

Case 3:08-cv-01505-MMC Document 7 Filed 09/22/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel to represent him in the

instant action. Because the petition is subject to dismissal, the motion for appointment of

counsel is hereby DENIED as moot. (Docket No. 5.)

2

Court denied the petition on the merits, (see id. Docket No. 11). 

By the instant petition, petitioner challenges the validity of the 1994 conviction on the

grounds his conviction was obtained in violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy

and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.

DISCUSSION

Where a claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus petition under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 has been presented in a prior petition, such claim must be dismissed. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). Where a claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus

petition under § 2254 has not been presented in a prior petition, such claim likewise must be

dismissed, unless: (1) the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to

cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, or (2) the factual predicate for the claim

could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence, and the

facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence

that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact-finder would have found the petitioner

guilty of the underlying offense. Id. § 2244(b)(2). Before a second or successive habeas

petition may be filed in the district court, the petitioner must first obtain an order from the

court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition. Id. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 

The instant petition presents claims challenging the 1994 conviction that was the

subject of petitioner’s prior federal habeas corpus petition. Consequently, petitioner may not

proceed with such claims until he has sought or obtained an order from the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals, authorizing him to file a second or successive petition in the district court. 

Accordingly, the instant petition will be dismissed without prejudice to petitioner’s refiling

the petition if he obtains the necessary order.1

Case 3:08-cv-01505-MMC Document 7 Filed 09/22/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the petition is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice, as

a second or second successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). 

In light of petitioner’s lack of funds, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is

hereby GRANTED.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 5 and 6.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 22, 2008 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01505-MMC Document 7 Filed 09/22/08 Page 3 of 3