Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00790/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00790-0/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD EARL GEORGE, Civil No. 12-0790 LAB (WMc)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF

SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)

GATEKEEPER PROVISION

vs.

ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner Richard Earl George, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee

or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court does not rule on Petitioner’s request

to proceed in forma pauperis because this case is summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) as indicated below. 

PETITION BARRED BY GATEKEEPER PROVISION

The instant Petition is not the first Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Petitioner has

submitted to this Court challenging his November 22, 2005 conviction in San Diego Superior

Court case No. SCD179831. On November 19, 2007, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus in case No. 07cv2215 J (POR). In that petition, Petitioner challenged

his conviction in San Diego Superior Court case No. SCD179831 as well. On September 24,

2009, the Court denied the petition on the merits. (See Order filed Sept. 24, 2009 in case No.

07cv2215 J (POR) [ECF No. 25].) Petitioner appealed that determination. On May 5, 2011, the

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv0790_successive.wpd, 4612 -1- 12cv0790

Case 3:12-cv-00790-LAB-WMC Document 3 Filed 04/06/12 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

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s decision. (See Order in George v. Almager,

No. 09-56835 (9th Cir. May 5, 2011).) 

Petitioner is now seeking to challenge the same conviction he challenged in his prior

federal habeas petition. Unless a petitioner shows he or she has obtained an Order from the

appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider a successive petition, the

petition may not be filed in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Here, there is no

indication the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Petitioner leave to file a successive

petition.

CONCLUSION

Because there is no indication Petitioner has obtained permission from the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals to file a successive petition, this Court cannot consider his Petition. 

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice to Petitioner filing a petition

in this court if he obtains the necessary order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The

Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a blank Ninth Circuit Application for Leave to

File Second or Successive Petition together with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 5, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv0790_successive.wpd, 4612 -2- 12cv0790

Case 3:12-cv-00790-LAB-WMC Document 3 Filed 04/06/12 Page 2 of 2