Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-04120/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-04120-3/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

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.08\Barnett04120_grant-mtd (succ).wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL W. BARNETT,

Petitioner,

 vs.

MICHAEL KNOWLES, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-04120 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

(Docket No. 23)

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. Respondent filed a

motion to dismiss the instant petition as second or successive under 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b). Petitioner did not file opposition although he was given an opportunity to

do so. Based upon the papers submitted, the Court concludes that the instant

petition is a second or successive petition. Since Petitioner has not presented an

order from the Court of Appeals authorizing the Court to consider the claims in the

instant petition, the Court will dismiss the petition.

///

///

Case 5:08-cv-04120-JF Document 24 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 5
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 commenced a second round of state habeas petitions on February

26, 2004, by filing a second state petition in state superior court. The state petition

filed in the California Supreme Court on June 1, 2004, was pending at the time

Respondent filed his motion to dismiss. 

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.08\Barnett04120_grant-mtd (succ).wpd 2

BACKGROUND

In 1998, Petitioner was convicted of infliction of corporal injury on mother of

child with prior, battery with serious bodily injury, two strike priors, and two serious

felony priors in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Petitioner was sentenced to a

total term of 35 years to life in state prison. 

Petitioner appealed his conviction. The California Court of Appeal affirmed

on September 27, 2000. The California Supreme Court denied review on January

10, 2001. Petitioner sought a petition for a writ of certiorari, which was denied by

the United States Supreme Court on June 11. 2001.

Petitioner first filed a federal habeas petition in this Court on August 8, 2001,

see Barnett v. Knowles, C 01-20748 JF (PR), which was voluntarily dismissed at the

request of petitioner on October 8, 2002, in order to exhaust unexhausted claims

through the state courts. 

On October 8, 2002, petitioner filed a state habeas petition in state superior

court, which was denied on November 6, 2002. Petitioner exhausted this state

petition through the upper courts, with the state high court denying review on

October 15, 2003.1

On October 29, 2003, Petitioner returned to this Court with a motion to file

an amended petition under his previous federal habeas action, C 01-20748 JF (PR),

but the Court denied the motion, and ordered the amended petition be opened as a

new habeas action, Barnett v. Knowles, C 04-2782 JF (PR). 

The amended petition was filed on July 12, 2004. Finding the petition stated

cognizable claims, the Court issued an order directing Respondent to show cause

why the writ should not be granted. On April 12, 2005, Respondent filed a motion

Case 5:08-cv-04120-JF Document 24 Filed 02/23/10 Page 2 of 5
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

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.08\Barnett04120_grant-mtd (succ).wpd 3

to dismiss the petition as untimely, which the Court granted on March 29, 2006,

after careful review of the submitted papers thereon. On May 17, 2006, this Court

denied petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability, and the Ninth Circuit

also denied the request on July 26, 2006.

Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas action on August 28, 2008. 

DISCUSSION

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the instant petition as a second and 

successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Petitioner did not file an opposition

although he was given an opportunity to do so. 

A district court must dismiss claims presented in a second or successive

habeas petition challenging the same conviction and sentence unless the claims

presented in the previous petition were denied for failure to exhaust. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(1); Babbitt v. Woodford, 177 F.3d 744, 745-46 (9th Cir. 1999). Section

2244 does apply when the previous petition was dismissed as barred by the statute of

limitations which constitutes a disposition on the merits. McNabb v. Yates, 576

F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 2009); Murray v. Greiner, 394 F.3d 78, 81 (2d Cir. 2005).

Additionally, a district court must dismiss any new claims raised in a successive

petition unless the petitioner received an order from the court of appeals authorizing

the district court to consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). 

Here, the instant petition challenges the same state conviction as the previous

petition by raising new claims of ineffective assistance by trial and appellate counsel

which were not raised in the earlier petition. Petitioner has not presented an order

from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this Court to consider these new

claims. Furthermore, the previous petition was dismissed as untimely, which

constitutes a disposition on the merits. See McNabb, 576 F.3d at 1029.

Accordingly, this Court must dismiss the instant petition in its entirety as a second or

successive petition pursuant to § 2244 (b)(1). 

Case 5:08-cv-04120-JF Document 24 Filed 02/23/10 Page 3 of 5
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

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.08\Barnett04120_grant-mtd (succ).wpd 4

CONCLUSION

Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as a second or successive petition

under § 2244(b) (Docket No. 23) is GRANTED. The instant petition for writ of

habeas corpus is DISMISSED.

This order terminates Docket No. 23.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge 

2/22/10

Case 5:08-cv-04120-JF Document 24 Filed 02/23/10 Page 4 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL W BARNETT,

Petitioner,

 v.

MICHAEL KNOWLES, Warden,

Respondent. /

Case Number: CV08-04120 JF 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Michael W. Barnett P-07058

Lancaster State Prison

PO Box 4670

INF #13

Lancaster, CA 93536-4670

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

2/23/10

2/23/10

Case 5:08-cv-04120-JF Document 24 Filed 02/23/10 Page 5 of 5