Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00450/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00450-0/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 

FILED
 I FE~ 2 7 2012 I 

CLERK, U.$.I)ISTRICT 

SOUTHERN DISrHICT OF 

IV 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JERRY WAYNE YOUNG, Civil No. 12-0450 BEN (RBB) 

Petitioner, 

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF 

vs. SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) WILLIAM B. KNIPP, GATEKEEPER PROVISION 

Respondent. 

Petitioner, Jerry Wayne Young, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ 

ofHabeas 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 ofhabeas corpus Petitioner has submitted 

to this Court challenging his March 20, 2005 conviction in San Diego Superior Court, Case No. SCD 

145402. On February 5, 2002, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus in Case 

No. 02cv0225 WQH (JFS). In that petition, Petitioner challenged his conviction in San Diego Superior 

Court, Case No. SCD 145402 as well. On September 1, 2004, this Court denied the petition on the 

merits. (See Case No. 02cv0225 WQH (JFS), Sept. 1,2004 Order [ECF No. 84].) Since then, Petitioner 

has filed two other petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court challenging his San Diego 

Superior Court conviction in Case No. SCD 145402. In Case No. 04cv0569 BEN (POR), Petitioner 

-1- 12cv0450 

Case 3:12-cv-00450-BEN-RBB Document 3 Filed 02/27/12 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 

challenged his conviction in Case No. SCD 145402, and the case was dismissed on statute oflimitations 

grounds. (See Case No. 04cv0569 BEN (POR), ECF Nos. 1, 31.) In Case No. l1cv0460 JAH (NLS), 

Petitioner challenged his conviction in Case No. SCD 145402, and the case was dismissed as second or 

successive. (See Case No. l1cv0460 JAH (NLS), ECF Nos. 1,6.) 

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

habeas petitions. 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); see also Murray v. Greiner, 394 F.3d 78,81 (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)). 

Here, there is no indication that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Petitioner leave to file 

a successive petition. 

CONCLUSION 

Because there is no indication that Petitioner has obtained permission from the Ninth Circuit 

Court ofAppeals 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 ifhe obtains 

the necessary order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Clerk ofCourt is directed to mail 

Petitioner a blank Ninth Circuit Application for Leave to file a Second or Successive Petition form 

together with a copy ofthis Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February,cP'!z012 

-2- 12cv0450 

Case 3:12-cv-00450-BEN-RBB Document 3 Filed 02/27/12 Page 2 of 2