Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00491/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00491-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT M. RUBINO, Civil No. 14-0491 GPC (BLM)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS

PETITION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AS SECOND OR

SUCCESSIVE

vs.

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with a request to proceed in forma

pauperis. The Court does not rule on Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis 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

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

submitted challenging his February 22, 2007 San Diego County Superior Court

conviction in Case No. SCN-167044. (See Petition at 1-2.) 

On April 1, 2011, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus in SO. DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE NO. 11-0665 WQH (WVG). (See Petition in SO.

DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE NO. 11cv0665 WQH (WVG), filed 4/11/14.) In that petition,

I:\Chambers Curiel\Civil - Odd\2014\14-0491\14cv0491-successive.wpd, 31214 -1- 14cv0491

Case 3:14-cv-00491-GPC-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/12/14 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

Petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence in San Diego Superior Court case No.

SCN-167044. On, March 6, 2012, this Court dismissed the petition because it had been

filed after the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. (See Order filed 3/6/12

in SO.DIST.CA.CIVIL CASE NO. 11cv0665 (WQH (WVG).) Petitioner has not appealed

that determination. 

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); Murray v. Greiner, 394 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2005) (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));

Reyes v. Vaughn, 276 F.Supp.2d 1027, 1029 (C. D. Cal. 2003) (same). Here, there is no

indication the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Petitioner 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. (Attached for Petitioner’s convenience is a blank Ninth Circuit

Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition.)

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 12, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

Copies to: ALL PARTIES

I:\Chambers Curiel\Civil - Odd\2014\14-0491\14cv0491-successive.wpd, 31214 -2- 14cv0491

Case 3:14-cv-00491-GPC-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/12/14 Page 2 of 2