Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02358/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02358-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD HILL, Civil

No. 13cv2358-MMA (RBB)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF

SUCCESSIVE PETITION

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER

PROVISION

[Doc. No. 2]

vs.

MIRIAM SPEARMAN, 

Respondent.

Petitioner, Bernard Hill, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together 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 May 15, 2005 conviction in San

Diego Superior Court case No. CD194373. On January 22, 2008, Petitioner filed in

this Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in case No. 08cv0124. In that petition,

Case 3:13-cv-02358-MMA-RBB Document 3 Filed 10/03/13 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

Petitioner challenged his conviction in San Diego Superior Court case No. CD194373

as well. On October 3, 2008, this Court denied that petition on the merits. [See Order

filed July 23, 2008 in case No. 08cv0124-JM(CAB) [Doc. No. 12].] On September 25,

2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s request for a certificate

of appealability, terminating his attempt to appeal this Court’s disposition of that

habeas petition. [See Order in Hill v. Tilton, No. 08-56778 (9th Cir. Sept. 25, 2009);

Case No. 08cv0124-JM(CAB) [Doc. No. 19].] The Ninth Circuitsubsequently denied

Petitioner's application for authorization to file a second or successive petition in this

Court. [See Order filed July 11, 2012 in Case No. 08cv0124-JM(CAB) [Doc. No. 20].] 

Petitioner acknowledges that he is now seeking to challenge the same conviction

he challenged in his prior federal habeas petition. [Doc. No. 1 at 5.] 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). Petitioner provides as an

exhibit to this Petition a copy of an “Application For Leave To File Second Or

Successive Petition” addressed to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth

Circuit bearing his signature and a date of September 20, 2013 [Doc. No. 1-1],

permitting the inference that the Application may not yet have been decided. There is

no indication at thistime that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Petitioner

leave to file a successive petition.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:13-cv-02358-MMA-RBB Document 3 Filed 10/03/13 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

CONCLUSION

Because there is no indication Petitioner has obtained permission fromthe 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: October 3, 2013

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

CC: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:13-cv-02358-MMA-RBB Document 3 Filed 10/03/13 Page 3 of 3