Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02485/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02485-0/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\H\10cv2485 dismiss.wpd, 12910 -1- 10cv2485

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANNON R. HOPSON, Civil

No.

10-2485 H (POR)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF

SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)

GATEKEEPER PROVISION

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along 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 June 25, 2001 conviction in San Diego Superior Court

case No. SCD 146596. On June 3, 2003, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus in case No. 03cv1115. In that petition, Petitioner challenged his conviction in

San Diego Superior Court case No. SCD 146596 as well. On April 30, 2004, this Court denied

the petition on the merits. (See Order filed April 30, 2004 in case No. 03cv1115 K (POR) [Doc.

No. 30].) Petitioner appealed that determination. On June 20, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of

Case 3:10-cv-02485-H-POR Document 3 Filed 12/09/10 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\H\10cv2485 dismiss.wpd, 12910 -2- 10cv2485

Appeals vacated and remanded the appeal with instructions to the district court to dismiss

Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion, which the Court previously denied for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. (See Order in Hopson v. Director of Correction, No. 04-57196 (9th Cir. Jul. 31,

2006).) This Court dismissed the Rule 60(b) motion as directed, leaving the order denying the

Petition intact. 

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2010

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:10-cv-02485-H-POR Document 3 Filed 12/09/10 Page 2 of 2