Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00714/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00714-0/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP J. GREENE,

Petitioner,

v.

HARTLEY, Warden,

 Respondent.

___________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-0714 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 2 & 3)

On January 30, 2008, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Included with

the petition is a “Motion to File Newly Exhausted Claim Via Second Petition – Abuse of

Discretion by Sentencing Court.” In said motion, petitioner states he is seeking leave to 

proceed with a second petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Petitioner characterizes the

instant petition as a second petition because the petition contains a newly-exhausted claim

concerning sentencing error in connection with petitioner’s 2003 conviction in Santa Clara

County Superior Court; petitioner currently has pending in this court an earlier-filed petition

challenging the validity of the same 2003 conviction. See Greene v. Powers, No. C 05-3433

MMC (PR). 

The Court will deny petitioner’s motion to proceed with his newly-exhausted claim in

the instant petition. Petitioner’s earlier-filed petition challenging the validity of petitioner’s

2003 conviction is still pending; thus, his challenge to the validity of the sentence arising

from the 2003 conviction should be brought in that petition. 

Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to file a second petition containing his newlyCase 3:08-cv-00714-MMC Document 4 Filed 02/08/08 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

1

If petitioner were seeking leave to file a second petition after his earlier-filed petition

challenging the 2003 conviction had already been denied, the Court would be required to

deny the motion and direct petitioner to seek leave from the Ninth Circuit to file a second

petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 

2

exhausted claim is hereby DENIED, and the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.1 If

petitioner wishes to proceed with his newly-exhausted claim challenging the validity of the

sentence he received in connection with his 2003 conviction, he must file a motion seeking

leave to amend the petition in Case No. C 05-3433. 

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby GRANTED.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 2 and 3.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 8, 2008

____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-00714-MMC Document 4 Filed 02/08/08 Page 2 of 2