Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02374/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02374-0/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

3:12-cv-2164-GPC-JMA

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

HARVEY EUGENE LARSON, Civil 

No.

16cv2374-GPC (BLM)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF 

SUCCESSIVE PETITION 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER 

PROVISION

vs.

PAT VASQUEZ, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner Harvey Eugene Larson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a 

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his sentence 

arising from his conviction in San Diego Superior Court Case No. SCE195230. (See Pet. 

at 1.) 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 sentence in San Diego Superior Court Case 

No. SCE195230. On August 21, 2009, Petitioner filed in this Court a Second Amended 

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his conviction and sentence in San 

Diego Superior Court Case No. SCE195230. (See Larson v. Carrasco, So.Dist.Ca. Case 

Case 3:16-cv-02374-GPC-BLM Document 2 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 3
2

3:12-cv-2164-GPC-JMA

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

No. 09cv0745-L (PCL), ECF No. 9).) On February 25, 2011, this Court denied the 

petition as barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), 

and denied a certificate of appealability. (See Larson v. Carrasco, So.Dist.Ca. Case No. 

09cv0745-L (PCL), ECF No. 51).) Petitioner appealed that dismissal, and on August 23, 

2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability and 

dismissed the appeal. (See Larson v. Carrasco, So.Dist.Ca. Case No. 09cv0745-L (PCL), 

ECF No. 59).) 

Petitioner then challenged the same conviction and sentence in a habeas petition 

filed in this Court on September 3, 2014. (See Larson v. Alison, So.Dist.Ca. Case No. 

14cv2083-JAH (JMA), ECF No. 1).) The Court dismissed that petition as successive on 

September 10, 2014. (See Larson v. Alison, So.Dist.Ca. Case No. 14cv2083-JAH 

(JMA), ECF No. 3).) Petitioner again challenged the same sentence in a habeas petition 

filed in this Court on April 26, 2016, which was dismissed as successive on May 11, 

2016. (See Larson v. Alison, So.Dist.Ca. Case No. 14cv2083-JAH (JMA), ECF Nos. 1, 

3).) Petitioner once again challenged the same sentence in a habeas petition filed in this 

Court on July 28, 2016, which was dismissed as successive on August 11, 2016. (See

Larson v. Sherman, So.Dist.Ca. Case No. 16cv1982-WQH (BLM), ECF Nos. 1, 3).) 

Petitioner is now seeking to challenge the same sentence he challenged in his prior 

federal habeas petitions, claiming that a prior Wisconsin conviction which was used to 

enhance his current sentence was a non-qualifying offense for California’s Three Strikes 

law. (Pet. at 6.) A petition is second or successive if the claim presented was ripe for 

review at the time the first petition was filed, even if the petitioner was unaware of the 

existence of the claim. United States v. Buenrostro, 638 F.3d 720, 725 (9th Cir. 2011). 

A petition is not second or successive if the petitioner did not have an opportunity to raise 

his claim at the time he filed his first petition. Hill v. Alaska, 297 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 

2002). Because Petitioner “could have raised his claim in his first petition,” the instant 

petition is second or successive. Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1273 (9th Cir. 

2001); see also McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that a 

Case 3:16-cv-02374-GPC-BLM Document 2 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 3
3

3:12-cv-2164-GPC-JMA

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

prior dismissal of a previous petition for failure to comply with the one-year statute of 

limitations renders subsequent petitions challenging the same conviction or sentence 

“second or successive” under 2244(b)). Although Petitioner contends: “There has been a 

change in the law” which permits him to raise the sentencing error claim now (Pet. at 6), 

he still must first obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit before this Court can consider 

his claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)&(b)(3)(A). 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 does not indicate that he has received 

permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive 

petition. (Pet. at 5.) 

CONCLUSION

Because Petitioner has not obtained permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals to file a successive petition, this Court cannot consider his Petition. See United 

States v. Lopez, 577 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th Cir. 2009) (“If the petitioner does not first 

obtain our authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the second or 

successive application.”) 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. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner 

a blank Ninth Circuit Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-02374-GPC-BLM Document 2 Filed 09/26/16 Page 3 of 3