Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04340/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04340-1/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE,

Petitioner,

v.

J. GASTELO, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 19-cv-04340-YGR (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at California Men’s Colony, San Luis

Obispo, has filed a second or successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1975 conviction and life sentence from the Santa Clara County 

Superior Court. He has paid the full filing fee.

Petitioner has filed several petitions in this Court attacking the validity of his 1975 

conviction. Petitioner has also previously been determined a vexatious litigant and was subject to 

pre-filing review in this Court. See Dkt. 42 in Magee v. Marshall, C 93-3637 DLJ (N.D. Cal. Prefiling Order May 10, 1995). However, that pre-filing review order has been vacated and 

Petitioner’s cases, including this case, have been reviewed. Petitioner has since continued to file 

many federal habeas and civil rights actions attacking the same conviction. The Court dismissed 

as successive his most recently filed habeas petition challenging this conviction on April 27, 2018. 

See Magee v. Scribner, No. C 18-01967 YGR (PR) (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 30, 2018).

II. DISCUSSION

The Court finds the present petition is a second or successive petition attacking the same

conviction and sentence as Petitioner’s previous petitions. A second or successive petition 

containing new claims may not be filed in the district court unless Petitioner first obtains from the 

United States Court of Appeals an order authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner has not done so. Accordingly, this petition is DISMISSED 

without prejudice to filing a new habeas action if he obtains the necessary order.

Case 4:19-cv-04340-YGR Document 6 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

Because reasonable jurists would not find the result here debatable, a certificate of appealability 

(“COA”) is DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (standard for COA). 

The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions as moot and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

August 7, 2019

Case 4:19-cv-04340-YGR Document 6 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 2