Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00347/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00347-0/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

JAMES ROY McNEIL, Civil No. 12cv0347-WQH (WMc)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF

SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)

GATEKEEPER PROVISION

vs.

MEL EPLY, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner James Roy McNeil, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for

a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his sentence of

twenty-five years to life imposed under California’s Three Strikes law as a result of a guilty

plea, claiming that his attorney did not explain the plea agreement to him and did not help him

file an appeal. (Pet. at 1.) For the following reasons, 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 March 29, 2000, conviction in San Diego Superior

Court Case No. SCD147486 and resultant sentence of twenty-five years to life. On September

27, 2005, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in SO. DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE

NO.05cv1852-J (PCL). (See Petition [Doc. No. 1] in SO.DIST.CA.CIVIL CASE NO.05cv1852-

J (PCL), filed 9/27/05.) In that petition, Petitioner challenged his sentence imposed in San

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\12cv0347-Dismiss.wpd, 21412 -1- 12cv0347

Case 3:12-cv-00347-WQH-WMC Document 2 Filed 02/14/12 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

Diego Superior Court Case No. SCD147486, claiming that his guilty plea was invalid due to

mental incompetence. (Id. at p. 11-12.) On August 31, 2006, this Court denied the petition

on the merits of the claims presented. (See Order filed 8/31/06 [Doc. No. 11] in SO. DIST.CA.

CIVIL CASE NO.05cv1852-J (PCL).) Petitioner filed a late appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals, which was limited to review of this Court’s denial of a post-judgment motion for

appointment of counsel; the Ninth Circuit affirmed on January 11, 2012. (See 9th Cir. Order

filed 1/11/12 [Doc. No. 24] in SO. DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE NO. 05cv1852-J (PCL).)

Petitioner is now seeking to challenge the same conviction and sentence 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 that Petitioner has requested or received permission from the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive petition. Accordingly, the Court is unable to

consider the Petition.1

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice to Petitioner to refile

his Petition if and when he receives the necessary permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals. The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a blank Ninth Circuit Application for Leave

to File a Second or Successive Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 14, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

1

 Petitioner has previously been notified of this requirement when he filed another habeas

petition challenging the same conviction, which was also dismissed as second or successive. See

Order filed 11/9/09 [Doc. No. 3] in SO. DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE NO. 09CV2339-WQH (WMC).

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\12cv0347-Dismiss.wpd, 21412 -2- 12cv0347

Case 3:12-cv-00347-WQH-WMC Document 2 Filed 02/14/12 Page 2 of 2