Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01592/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01592-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction. Petitioner has previously sought habeas relief at least eight times in this district, all of 

which have been dismissed: 1:00-cv- 5452-SMS, 1:06-cv-01400-WMW, 1:09-cv-000685-GSA, 

1:09-cv- 02212-JLT, 1:10-cv-00814-DLB, 1:10-cv-00954-AWI-DLB, 1:12-cv-00594-JLT, and 

1:14-cv-0026-MJS. The first action, before the undersigned, was dismissed for violating the 

statute of limitations. The subsequent seven were dismissed as successive. Petitioner challenged 

his 1994 conviction in Merced County Superior Court for sale of a controlled substance in each 

petition, including the instant petition. 

I. DISCUSSION

The Court is required to screen pleadings filed by prisoners, and to dismiss them to the 

extent they fail to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 

2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and 

any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4 of the 

GREGORY W. STEWART,

Petitioner,

v.

J. MACOMBER, Warden; BRIAN G. 

SMILEY,

Respondents.

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1592-SMS (HC)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

 

Case 1:15-cv-01592-SMS Document 6 Filed 03/02/16 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

2

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

A federal court must dismiss a second or successive petition that raises the same grounds 

as a prior petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). A court must also dismiss a second or successive 

petition raising a new ground unless the petitioner can show that 1) the claim rests on a new 

constitutional right, made retroactive by the United States Supreme Court or 2) the factual basis of 

the claim was not previously discoverable through due diligence, and these new facts establish by 

clear and convincing evidence that but for the constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would 

have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B). 

However, it is not the district court that decides whether a second or successive petition meets 

these requirements; the Petitioner must first file a motion with the appropriate court of appeals to 

be authorized to file a second or successive petition with the district court. 

Section 2244 (b)(3)(A) provides: "Before a second or successive application permitted by 

this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals 

for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." In other words, Petitioner 

must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before he can file a second or successive petition in 

district court. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-657 (1996). This Court must dismiss any 

second or successive petition unless the Court of Appeals has given Petitioner leave to file the 

petition because a district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a second or successive 

petition. Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Because the current petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the 

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 apply to Petitioner's current petition. Lindh 

v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997). Petitioner makes no showing that he has obtained prior 

leave from the Ninth Circuit to file his successive petition attacking the conviction. That being so, 

this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed application for relief under Section 

2254 and must dismiss the petition. See Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1277. If Petitioner desires to 

proceed in bringing this petition for writ of habeas corpus, he must file for leave to do so with the 

Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3).

Case 1:15-cv-01592-SMS Document 6 Filed 03/02/16 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

3

II. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the petition be DISMISSED as 

successive. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01592-SMS Document 6 Filed 03/02/16 Page 3 of 3