Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00598/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00598-1/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

17cv0598 GPC (KSC)

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

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Case No. 17cv0598 GPC (KSC)

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF 

SUCCESSIVE PETITION 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER 

PROVISION

Petitioner has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. For the reasons discussed below, the case is summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

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 March 3, 2004 conviction in San Diego County 

Superior Court case number SCD133238. On August 12, 2009, Petitioner filed a Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court, in case No. 09cv1767. In that petition, Petitioner 

challenged his March 3, 2004 conviction as well. On June 9, 2011, this Court denied the 

petition on the merits. (See Order filed June 7, 2011 in case No. 09cv1767 H (CAB) [ECF

No. 30].) On September 13, 2011 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00598-GPC-KSC Document 7 Filed 05/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv0598 GPC (KSC)

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

application to file a second or successive petition. (See Order in Garces v. Yates, No. 11-

71887 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2011).) 

Petitioner is now seeking to challenge the sentence imposed as a result of the 

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); see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007) (a 

petition is successive where it challenges “the same custody imposed by the same judgment 

of a state court” as a prior petition). A successive application is permissible “only if it rests 

on a new rule of constitutional law, facts that were previously unavailable, or facts that 

would be sufficient to show constitutional error in the petitioner's conviction.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(2). “Even if a petitioner can demonstrate that he qualifies for one of these 

exceptions, he must seek authorization from the court of appeals before filing his new 

petition with the district court.” Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir.2008). 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: May 4, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00598-GPC-KSC Document 7 Filed 05/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2