Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02395/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02395-0/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 

""'~''''''p",,-,t« 

tJLELJ 

12 OCT 31 AM 10: 56 

ClER~. u.s. DiS ; i COl);;' T ~'UTHERN DIS n; Ie i CALIFORNli 

!IV: -() O£1l'UT' 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CAROLE A. RUCKER, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

D. K. JOHNSON, Warden, 

Respondent. 

Civil No. 12cv2395-WQH (BGS) 

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF 

SUCCESSIVE PETITION 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER 

PROVISION 

Petitioner Carole A. Rucker, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has 

filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The 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 her June 17,2003, conviction for attempted murder in San 

Diego Superior Court case No. SCE 167667, and resultant sentence of thirty-two years to life 

in state prison. On February 27, 2007, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for a Writ of 

Habeas Corpus in So. Dist.Ca.Civil Case No. 07cv0364-IEG (RBB). In that petition, Petitioner 

also challenged her conviction and sentence in San Diego Superior Court case No. SCE 167667. 

(See Pet. filed Feb. 27, 2007 [Doc. No.1] in So.Dist.Ca.Civil Case No. 07cv0364-IEG (RBB).) 

On September 3, 2008, this Court adopted a Report and Recommendation and denied the petition 

b[V!lrYolI'lU:Fn..E-PROSE\WQlf\J2,"v2191-Dwmn.wpd,102<112 -1- 12cv2395 

Case 3:12-cv-02395-WQH-BGS Document 4 Filed 10/31/12 Page 1 of 2
1 1\ on the merits of the claims presented therein. (See Order filed Sept. 3, 2008 [Doc. No. 16] in 

211 So.Dist.Ca.Civil Case No. 07cv0364-IEG (RBB).) Petitioner appealed that determination. The 

3 II Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affmned the denial of the petition in all respects. (See Order 

411 filed March 4, 2010 in Rucker v. Lattimore, No. 08-56652 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished 

5 II memorandum) [Doc. No. 24] in So.Dist.Ca.Civil Case No. 07cv0364-IEG (RBB).) 

6 II Petitioner is seeking in this case to challenge the same conviction she challenged in her 

7 II prior federal habeas petition, which was denied on the merits of the claims presented therein. 

8 /I Unless a petitioner shows he or she has obtained an Order from the appropriate court of appeals 

9 II authorizing the district court to consider a successive petition, the petition may not be filed in 

10/1 the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Here, there is no indication the Ninth Circuit 

11 II Court of Appeals has granted Petitioner leave to file a successive petition. In fact, Petitioner 

12 indicates that she has not been provided with such permission. (Pet. at 5.) 

13 CONCLUSION 

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

15 II Court of Appeals to file a successive petition, this Court cannot consider her Petition. 

16/1 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice to Petitioner filing a petition 

17 II in this court if she obtains the necessary order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The 

18 II Clerk ofCourt shall send Petitioner a blank Ninth Circuit Application for Leave to File a Second 

19 II or Successive Petition along with a copy ofthis Order. 

20 II IT IS SO ORDERED. 

21 

22 DATED: / 0 /.1',//1­ i 

23 

24 

United States Distric(Judge 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1:\E~_EFIL£'PROSE\WQH\I~Y219$·DWnM....wpd. 102<112 -2- 12cv2395 

William Q. Hay 

Case 3:12-cv-02395-WQH-BGS Document 4 Filed 10/31/12 Page 2 of 2