Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00472/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00472-0/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 C. BOTTOMLEY, Civil No. 12-0472 BTM (WMc)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF

SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)

GATEKEEPER PROVISION

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, Director,

Respondent.

Petitioner, James C. Bottomley, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and has not paid the $5.00 filing fee or

filed 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 June 15, 2001, conviction in San Diego Superior Court

case No. SCN 109543. On October 11, 2007, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus in case No. 07cv1973 W (NLS). In that petition, Petitioner also challenged

his conviction in San Diego Superior Court case No. SCN 109543l. On July 7, 2008, this Court

granted a motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition because it was filed beyond the one year

statute of limitations. (See Order filed July 7, 2007 in case No. 07cv1973 W (NLS) [Doc. No.

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\12cv0472_successive.wpd, 3912 -1- 12cv0472

Case 3:12-cv-00472-BTM-WMC Document 3 Filed 03/09/12 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

15].) Petitioner appealed that determination. On July 17, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals denied the request for a certificate of appealability. (See Order in Bottomley v. Tilton,

No. 08-56489 (9th Cir. July 17, 2009).) 

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); Murray v. Greiner,

394 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that dismissal for failure to comply with one-year statute

of limitations renders subsequent petitions challenging the same conviction or sentence “second

or successive” under 2244(b)); Reyes v. Vaughn, 276 F.Supp.2d 1027, 1029 (C. D. Cal. 2003)

(same). 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 Cout 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 in the Ninth Circuit together with a copy of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 9, 2012

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\12cv0472_successive.wpd, 3912 -2- 12cv0472

Case 3:12-cv-00472-BTM-WMC Document 3 Filed 03/09/12 Page 2 of 2