Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01635/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01635-0/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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Sterling635dissuc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL STERLING,

Petitioner,

 vs.

WILLIAM ALSUP,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-1635 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 challenging his 1998 San Francisco Superior Court

conviction. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Petitioner has filed two earlier habeas

actions with the Court, case nos. C 01-3809 WHA and C 06-1583 WHA (PR),

challenging the same conviction and sentence raised in the instant petition. Petitioner’s

first habeas action, case no. C 01-3809 WHA, was denied on the merits on February 22,

2002. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the petition in 2003. Petitioner’s

second habeas action, case no. C 06-1583 JF (PR), was dismissed as a second or

successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), (3). The Court will DISMISS the

instant petition as a second or successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). 

**Original filed 9/30/06**

Case 5:06-cv-01635-JF Document 4 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Sterling635dissuc 2

DISCUSSION

A district court must dismiss claims presented in a second or successive habeas

petition challenging the same conviction and sentence unless the claims presented in the

previous petition were denied for failure to exhaust. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1); Babbitt

v. Woodford, 177 F.3d 744, 745-46 (9th Cir. 1999). Additionally, a district court must

dismiss any new claims raised in a successive petition unless the petitioner received an

order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition. See

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), (3).

Here, the instant petition challenges the same conviction and sentence as

Petitioner’s earlier habeas actions in case no. C 01-3809 WHA and C 06-1583 WHA

(PR). The earlier habeas petition, in case no. C 01-3809 WHA, was denied on the merits,

and Petitioner has not presented an order from the Court of Appeals authorizing this

Court to consider any new claims. Accordingly, this Court must dismiss the instant

petition in its entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

CONCLUSION

The instant petition is DISMISSED without prejudice as a second and successive

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). The Clerk shall terminate any pending

motions and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

9/30/06

Case 5:06-cv-01635-JF Document 4 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Sterling635dissuc 3

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Daniel Sterling

K-85278

Pleasant Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 8502

Coalinga, CA 93210

Case 5:06-cv-01635-JF Document 4 Filed 10/02/06 Page 3 of 3