Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01839/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01839-0/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

- 1 - 07cv1839

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRONE ROGERS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07-CV-1839-H (PCL)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

AND DISMISSING, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, PETITION FOR

HABEAS CORPUS

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §

2254

vs.

G.J. GIURBINO, Warden, and

EDWARD G. BROWN, JR., Attorney

General,

Respoondent.

On November 5, 2007, the government brought a motion to dismiss this petition

as a second or successive petition filed without leave of the Court of Appeals. (Doc.

No. 6.) Petitioner filed his opposition to the motion on November 30, 2007. (Doc. No.

8.) On January 22, 2008, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation

that the Court grant the motion and dismiss the petition without prejudice to Petitioner’s

ability to obtain leave from the Court of Appeals. (Doc. No. 9.) The Magistrate Judge

set a deadline of February 19, 2008, for Petitioner to file any objections to the report

and recommendation, but Petitioner has not filed any objections at this time. For the

reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, grants the

motion, and dismisses the petition without prejudice.

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-01839-H-PCL Document 10 Filed 03/10/08 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 - 07cv1839

Discussion

A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Although Petitioner did not object to the Report and

Recommendation, the Court has conducted is own review of the parties’ papers prior

to reaching its decision. 

Petitioner does not dispute that he filed a previous petition in this Court, Case No.

06-CV-2549-H (NLS), which involved the same underlying convictions. The Court

denied that petition on July 11, 2007. (See Case No. 06-CV-2549, Doc. No. 10.)

Petitioner claims that he did not learn of this Court’s denial of his first petition until the

government filed its motion to dismiss in this case. He alleges that the state prevented

him from receiving mail related to the first petition. Whether or not Petitioner’s

allegations are true, they do not remove the statutory requirement that “[b]efore 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The Court has

reviewed Petitioner’s claims and concluded that they were or could have been

adjudicated on the merits in his previous petition, thus making it a second or successive

petition within the meaning of the statute. See Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270,

1273 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Generally, a new petition is ‘second or successive’ if it raises

claims that were or could have been adjudicated on their merits in an earlier petition.”).

Petitioner argues that his situation presents “extraordinary circumstances” that

should permit him to proceed without approval from the Court of Appeals. Petitioner

has pointed to no authority, however, that creates an extraordinary circumstances

exception to the requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). For example, Petitioner

cites 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B), but that provision only provides for tolling of the

statute of limitations when there is a state-created impediment; it does not remove the

need for the Court of Appeals to approve or second or successive petition. 

Case 3:07-cv-01839-H-PCL Document 10 Filed 03/10/08 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 - 07cv1839

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the Report and

Recommendation, GRANTS the motion to dismiss, and DISMISSES the petition

without prejudice to Petitioner’s ability to proceed if he obtains leave from the Court

of Appeals. Along with the copy of this order, the Clerk shall send Petitioner a form

application for leave to file a second or successive petition, which Petitioner may then

submit to the Court of Appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 10, 2008

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO:

All parties of record.

Case 3:07-cv-01839-H-PCL Document 10 Filed 03/10/08 Page 3 of 3