Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01352/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01352-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\08cv1352SuccDism.wpd, 888 -1- 08cv1352

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAJU AHMED, Civil No. 08-1352 BTM (NLS)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS

PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

AS SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE

vs.

DAVID KNOWLES,

Respondents.

On July 26, 2008, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In this action, Petitioner appears to challenge

his San Diego County Superior Court conviction and sentence for first degree murder in Case

No. SDC120898. (See Petition at 16-23.) 

PRIOR FEDERAL HABEAS PETITIONS DENIED ON THE MERITS

On January 13, 2000, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

in SO.DIST.CA.CIVIL CASE NO. 00cv0084 W (AJB). (See Petition in SO.DIST.CA.CIVIL CASE

NO.00cv0084 W (AJB), filed 1/13/00.) In that petition, Petitioner challenged his conviction and

sentence in San Diego Superior Court case No. SDC120898. On September 22, 2000, this Court

dismissed the petition because Petitioner’s claims were procedurally defaulted. (See Order filed

9/22/00 in SO.DIST.CA.CIVIL CASE NO. 00cv0084 W (AJB) [doc. no. 22].) Petitioner appealed

that determination, and on November 25, 2003 the Ninth Circuit vacated this Court’s decision

and remanded the case back to this Court for consideration in light of the Ninth Circuit’s

Case 3:08-cv-01352-BTM-NLS Document 2 Filed 08/08/08 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\08cv1352SuccDism.wpd, 888 -2- 08cv1352

decision in Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573 (9th Cir. 2003). (See Order dated 11/25/03 in SO.

DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE NO. 00cv0084 W (AJB) [doc. no. 34].) 

Following the remand, this Court again dismissed the petition as procedurally defaulted

on October 14, 2004. (See Order filed 10/14/04 in SO. DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE NO. 00cv0084 W

(AJB) [doc. no. 55].) On May 12, 2006, the Ninth Circuit upheld this Court’s dismissal. (See

Order filed 5/12/06 in SO. DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE NO. 00cv84 W (AJB) [doc. no. 66].)

INSTANT PETITION BARRED BY GATEKEEPER PROVISION

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

federal habeas petition. “[A] denial on grounds of procedural default constitutes a disposition

on the merits and thus renders a subsequent § 2254 petition or § 2255 motion ‘second or

successive’ for purposes of the AEDPA.” Henderson v. Lampert, 396 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir.

2005), citing Carter v. United States, 150 F.3d 202, 205 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam). 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). 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 A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE PETITION.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 8, 2008

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01352-BTM-NLS Document 2 Filed 08/08/08 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\08cv1352SuccDism.wpd, 888 -3- 08cv1352

Case 3:08-cv-01352-BTM-NLS Document 2 Filed 08/08/08 Page 3 of 3