Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00961/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00961-0/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\IEG\08cv0961-Successive.wpd, 638 -1- 08cv0961

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TED DARNELL DANIELS, Civil No. 08-0961 IEG (NLS)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF

SUCCESSIVE PETITION

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER

PROVISION

vs.

V. ALMAGER, Warden, et al., 

Respondents.

Petitioner, Ted Darnell Daniels, 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 27, 2001 conviction in San Diego Superior Court

case No. SDC 149951. On August 11, 2004, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus in case No. 04cv1639. In that petition, Petitioner challenged his conviction in

San Diego Superior Court case No. SDC 149951 as well. On December 8, 2006, this Court

denied the petition on the merits. (See Order filed Dec. 8, 2006 in case No. 04cv0639 DMS

(WMc) [Doc. No. 45].) Petitioner appealed that determination. On August 3, 2007, the Ninth

Case 3:08-cv-00961-IEG-NLS Document 3 Filed 06/03/08 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\08cv0961-Successive.wpd, 638 -2- 08cv0961

Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s request for a Certificate of Appealability. (See

Order in Daniels v. Woodford, No. 07-55039 (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2007) [Doc. No. 57].) 

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. For

Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach a blank Ninth Circuit Application for

Leave to File Second or Successive Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

\

DATED: June 3, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:08-cv-00961-IEG-NLS Document 3 Filed 06/03/08 Page 2 of 2