Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01484/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01484-0/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

MICHAEL J. WILLIAMS, Civil No. 12-1484 AJB (WMc)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF

SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)

GATEKEEPER PROVISION

v.

DOMINGO URIBE, Jr., Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner, Michael J. Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a request 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 July 6, 2001 conviction in San Diego Superior Court case

No. SCE 211610. On September 2, 2003, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus in case No. 03cv1756. In that petition, Petitioner challenged his conviction in

San Diego Superior Court case No. SCE 211610 as well. On April 7, 2004, this Court denied

the petition because the first claim was procedurally barred and unexhausted, the second claim

was unexhausted and not cognizable on federal habeas review and denied the third claim on the

merits. (See Order filed April 7, 2004, in case No. 03cv1756 J (POR) [Doc. No. 17].) 

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\successive.wpd, 62112 -1- 12cv1484

Case 3:12-cv-01484-AJB-WMC Document 3 Filed 06/21/12 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

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 Application for Leave to File a Second

or Successive Petition or Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2255 together with a copy of

this Order .

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 21, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\successive.wpd, 62112 -2- 12cv1484

Case 3:12-cv-01484-AJB-WMC Document 3 Filed 06/21/12 Page 2 of 2