Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05331/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05331-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUNG TRI NGUYEN,

Petitioner,

 vs.

M.E. SPEARMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-5331 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding pro se, has filed a

habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He was convicted and sentenced in

Santa Clara Superior Court for assault with a deadly weapon, attempt to dissuade a

witness, and assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury. He previously filed a

federal habeas petition challenging the same judgment, which petition was denied on its

merits. See Nguyen v. Evans, No. C 06-4630 JSW (PR) (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2008) (dkt.

17). Petitioner appealed that decision, but the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. See Evans v. Nguyen, No. 08-16593

(9th Cir. Mar. 9, 2009). 

The instant petition is a second federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the same state court judgment. See Barrow v.

Gonzales, Case No. C 10-1521 JSW (PR). A second or successive petition may not be

filed in this Court unless petitioner first obtains from the United States Court of Appeals

Case 4:15-cv-05331-JSW Document 6 Filed 12/29/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

for the Ninth Circuit an order authorizing this Court to consider the petition. See 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner has not sought or obtained such an order from the

Ninth Circuit. The petition is accordingly DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling if

Petitioner obtains the necessary order.

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires a district court to

rule on whether a Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability in the same order

in which the petition is decided. No reasonable jurist would find this Court's dismissal

of this petition debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Consequently, no certificate of appealability is warranted in this case.

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 29, 2015 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-05331-JSW Document 6 Filed 12/29/15 Page 2 of 2