Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02387/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02387-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\07cv2387-Successive.wpd, 148 -1- 07cv2387

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIONEL SCOTT, Civil No. 07-2387 L (PCL)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF

SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)

GATEKEEPER PROVISION

vs.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

December 19, 2007, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising a claim challenging his sentence in San

Diego Superior Court Case No. SDC137581. 

The instant Petition is not the first Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Petitioner has

submitted to this Court challenging his conviction in San Diego Superior Court case No.

SDC137581. Thus, 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 February 22, 2001, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

in case No. 01cv0305 W (JAH). In that petition, Petitioner challenged his conviction in San

Diego Superior Court case No. SDC137581. On January 18, 2002, this Court denied the

petition on the merits. (See Order filed Jan. 18, 2002 in Case No. 01cv0305 at doc. no. 13.)

Petitioner did not appeal that determination. 

Case 3:07-cv-02387-L-PCL Document 2 Filed 01/04/08 Page 1 of 2
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\L\07cv2387-Successive.wpd, 148 -2- 07cv2387

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 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). Here, there is no indication the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Luken leave to file a successive petition.

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 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. For

Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attached a blank Ninth Circuit Application

for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 4, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02387-L-PCL Document 2 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 2