Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00191/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00191-0/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

1

 Although Petitioner now contends that his 1999 Petition was denied on the basis that he failed

to exhaust state court remedies (see Pet. at 5), the 1999 Petition was clearly denied on its merits.

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\07cv0191-Dismiss.wpd, 2127 -1- 07cv0191

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN MATTA SANTOS, Civil No. 07cv0191-WQH (PCL)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF

SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)

GATEKEEPER PROVISION

vs.

J. F. SALAZAR, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner, Juan Matta Santos, 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 in forma pauperis request because this case

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

PRIOR FEDERAL HABEAS PETITIONS DENIED ON THE MERITS

On July 1, 1999, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in SO.

DIST.CA.CIVIL CASE NO. 99cv1364-JM (AJB). (See Petition in SO. DIST.CA.CIVIL CASE NO.

99cv1364-JM (AJB), filed 7/1/99.) In that petition, Petitioner challenged his conviction in San

Diego Superior Court case No. SCD121236. (Id. at p. 1.) On May 12, 2000, this Court denied

the petition on the merits of the claims presented.1

 (See Order filed 5/12/00 in SO. DIST. CA.

CIVIL CASE NO. 99cv1364-JM (AJB).) Petitioner appealed that determination. On December

Case 3:07-cv-00191-WQH-PCL Document 3 Filed 02/12/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\07cv0191-Dismiss.wpd, 2127 -2- 07cv0191

8, 2000, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s request for a Certificate of

Appealability and dismissed the appeal. (See Order filed 12/8/00, Doc. No. 22 in SO. DIST.CA.

CIVIL CASE NO. 09cv1364-JM (AJB).) 

INSTANT PETITION BARRED BY GATEKEEPER PROVISION

Petitioner is now seeking to once again challenge his San Diego Superior Court

conviction and sentence in case number SCD121236 (Pet. at 1), which is the same conviction

and sentence 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). Although Petitioner now wishes to present claims alleging ineffective assistance of

trial and appellate counsel predicated on events which happened at trial and appeal, but were not

raised in the first petition, the instant petition is nevertheless considered successive under section

2244(b). See Hill v. Alaska, 297 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that second petition is

successive where claims presented therein could have been raised in prior petition); Babbitt v.

Woodford, 177 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 1999) (finding as successive claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel predicated on facts which were known or should have been known at the

time of trial). Even to the extent Petitioner contends that claim four, relating to the modification

of the abstract of judgment, could not have been presented in the original petition because the

abstract of judgment was modified seven years after his conviction (see Pet. at 9), Petitioner does

not identify a federal constitutional error arising from his allegations in this regard, but merely

makes vague references to “due process,” “equal protection,” “ex post facto” etc., and as such

this Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim. See Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th Cir.

1991) (claims alleging violations of state law or state constitutional provisions are insufficient

to state a federal habeas claim absent specific allegations pointing to a violation of federal law

or the federal constitution). 

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.

Case 3:07-cv-00191-WQH-PCL Document 3 Filed 02/12/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\07cv0191-Dismiss.wpd, 2127 -3- 07cv0191

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.

(Attached for Petitioner’s convenience is a blank Ninth Circuit Application for Leave to File

Second or Successive Petition.) The dismissal is also without prejudice to Petitioner to proceed

with a new federal habeas petition, which will be given a new civil case number, in which he

presents federal claims which he did not have the opportunity to raise in his original petition, if

any such claims exist.

The Clerk shall include a blank Ninth Circuit Application for Leave to File Second or

Successive Petition form along with this Order and shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 12, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00191-WQH-PCL Document 3 Filed 02/12/07 Page 3 of 3