Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05281/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05281-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMMIE LEE RELERFORD,

Petitioner,

 v.

J. WALKER, Warden,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 07-5281 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On October 17, 2007, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has

paid the filing fee. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the instant petition is

subject to dismissal because petitioner has not sought or obtained authorization to file a

second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).

BACKGROUND

On November 8, 1996, in the Superior Court of San Mateo County, petitioner was

convicted of nine counts of strong armed robbery. He was sentenced to nine terms of

twenty- five years to life in state prison. 

Petitioner previously filed in this district four petitions challenging the 1996

conviction and sentence. Each prior petition was dismissed, as follows: Relerford v. People

of the State of California, C 98-2940 MMC, was dismissed when petitioner failed to amend

the petition as ordered by the Court; Relerford v. People of the State of California, C 98-

Case 3:07-cv-05281-MMC Document 2 Filed 04/11/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

2918 MMC, was dismissed as duplicative; Relerford v. People of the State of California, C

99-0979 MMC, was dismissed as untimely under the one-year statute of limitations

applicable to federal habeas corpus petitions; and Relerford v. Hill, C 99-4808 MMC, was

dismissed as a successive petition.

In the instant petition, petitioner claims the sentence imposed on his 1996 conviction

is unlawful because it exceeds the sentence allowed under California law.

DISCUSSION

A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. §

2254 that was presented in a prior petition must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). A

claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus petition under § 2254 that was not

presented in a prior petition must also be dismissed, unless: (1) the claim relies on a new rule

of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, or

(2) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the

exercise of due diligence, and the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish

by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact-finder

would have found the petitioner guilty of the underlying offense. Id. § 2244(b)(2). Before a

second or successive habeas petition may be filed in the district court, the petitioner must

first obtain an order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the

petition. Id. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 

The instant petition presents claims challenging the 1996 sentence that was the subject

of petitioner’s prior federal habeas corpus petitions. Consequently, petitioner may not

proceed with such claims until he has sought or obtained an order from the Ninth Circuit

authorizing him to file a second or successive petition in the district court. Accordingly, the

instant petition must be dismissed without prejudice to petitioner’s refiling the petition if he

obtains the necessary order.

//

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-05281-MMC Document 2 Filed 04/11/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the petition is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice as

a second or second successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 11, 2008 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05281-MMC Document 2 Filed 04/11/08 Page 3 of 3