Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00151/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00151-0/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 

FlLED 

i ,., ,..-,", ! ~ ' ••", -,;.1. """" { .......... 1 -, 

tAO 

J'~ II ,j. "". 55

.-"', "", 

DPUTY 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 

12 

13 

BENNIE DIXON, 

vs. 

Petitioner, 

14 TIM VIGRA, Warden 

15 

16 

Respondent. 

Civil No. 13-0151 WQH (PCL) 

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF 

SUCCESSIVE PETITION 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER 

PROVISION 

Petitioner, Bennie Dixon, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ 

17 .. of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a request to proceed in forma 

18 II pauperis. The Court does not rule on Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis because 

1911 this case is summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 2244(b)(3)(A) as indicated below. 

20 

PETITION BARRED BY GATEKEEPER PROVISION 

21 

The instant Petition is not the first Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Petitioner has 

22 .. submitted to this Court challenging his October 7, 2005 conviction in San Diego Superior Court 

23 II case No. SCN189576. On September 24, 2008, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ 

2411 ofHabeas Corpus in case NO.08cv1764 JM (BLM). In that petition, Petitioner challenged his 

2511 conviction in San Diego Superior Court case No. SCN189576 as well. On April 28, 2010, this 

2611 Court denied the petition on the merits. (See Order filed April 28, 2010in case No. 08cv1764JM 

2711 (BLM) [ECF. No. 44].) Petitioner appealed that determination. On December 21, 2011, the 

28 

!:-'E\lI:t'YMt\..EFI1.LPRo:mWQH\I)(V!)t'I<tIU~e.wpd.I1813 -1- 13cvOlSI 

Case 3:13-cv-00151-WQH-PCL Document 4 Filed 02/04/13 Page 1 of 2
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 II Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals denied Petitioner's request for a certificate ofappealability. (See 

211 Order in Dixon v. Adams, No. 10-55959 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2011).) 

3 II Petitioner is now seeking to challenge the same conviction he challenged in his prior 

411 federal habeas petition. Unless a petitioner shows he or she has obtained an Order from the 

II appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider a successive petition, the 

6 II petition may not be filed in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b )(3)(A). Here, there is no 

7 II indication the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Petitioner leave to file a successive 

8 petition. 

9 CONCLUSION 

II Because there is no indication Petitioner has obtained permission from the Ninth Circuit 

11 II Court of Appeals to file a successive petition, this Court cannot consider his Petition. 

1211 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice to Petitioner filing a petition 

13 II in this court if he obtains the necessary order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. For 

1411 Petitioner's convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order, a blank Ninth Circuit 

II Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition. 

1611 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

17 

19 

1811 DATED: ~ William Q. HayJ's 

United States Distr~t Judge 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

htveryon""_EFru;...PJl.OSE''wQH\ll<..''''()l~! __;~~,...,..L IlH!:t -2- 13cv01SI 

Case 3:13-cv-00151-WQH-PCL Document 4 Filed 02/04/13 Page 2 of 2