Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02944/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02944-0/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

16cv2944 GPC (WVG)

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 E. LARSON,

Petitioner,

v.

PAT VASQUEZ, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16cv2944 GPC (WVG)

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF 

SUCCESSIVE PETITION 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER 

PROVISION

Petitioner Harvey E. Larson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a document entitled 

“Motion to Proceed Before Obtaining Prisoner Trust Account Statement.” This case is 

summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) as indicated below, and the 

motion is thus DENIED.

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 April 13, 2000 conviction in San Diego 

Superior Court, case No. SCE 195230. On July 7, 2009, Petitioner filed in this Court an 

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in case No. 09cv0745 L (PCL). In that 

Case 3:16-cv-02944-GPC-WVG Document 3 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 3
2

16cv2944 GPC (WVG)

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

petition, Petitioner challenged his conviction in San Diego Superior Court case No. SCE 

195230 as well. On February 25, 2011, this Court denied the petition as untimely. A 

certificate of appealability was denied by the Ninth Circuit on August 23, 2012. (ECF 

No. 59.)

INSTANT PETITION BARRED BY GATEKEEPER PROVISION

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

prior federal habeas petition. 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); McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that dismissal 

for failure to comply with one-year statute of limitations renders subsequent petitions 

challenging the same conviction or sentence “second or successive” under 2244(b)). 

Here, there is no indication the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Petitioner 

leave to file a successive petition.

1

CONCLUSION

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

Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive petition, this Court cannot consider his 

Petition. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed Without a 

Trust Account Statement and 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 mail Petitioner a blank Application 

for Leave to File a Second or Successive Petition or Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 or § 2255 together with a copy of this Order.

/ / / / 

/ / / / 

 

1 Petitioner has filed three other cases that have been dismissed as successive, 14cv2083 JAH (JMA), 

16cv1038 GPC (MDD), and 16cv2374 GPC (BLM).

Case 3:16-cv-02944-GPC-WVG Document 3 Filed 12/06/16 Page 2 of 3
3

16cv2944 GPC (WVG)

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-02944-GPC-WVG Document 3 Filed 12/06/16 Page 3 of 3