Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06192/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06192-3/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRONE LAMONT REED, SR.,

Petitioner,

v.

MARTIN BITER,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-6192-TEH 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner, Tyrone Lamont Reed, Sr., filed a pro se Petition 

for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He 

challenges a 2009 conviction in Alameda County.

I

Court records indicate that Petitioner already filed a 

habeas petition in this Court challenging the same conviction. 

Reed v. Biter, Case No. 13-cv-5545-TEH. That case was denied on 

the merits on February 10, 2016. On November 8, 2016, the Ninth 

Circuit denied a request for a certificate of appealability. 

This case appears to be a successive petition.

“A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus 

application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior 

application shall be dismissed . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). 

This is the case unless,

(A) the applicant shows that the claim 

relies on a new rule of constitutional law, 

made retroactive to cases on collateral 

Case 3:16-cv-06192-TEH Document 8 Filed 12/19/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

review by the Supreme Court, that was 

previously unavailable; or

(B) (i) the factual predicate for the 

claim could not have been discovered 

previously through the exercise of due 

diligence; and

(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if 

proven and viewed in light of the evidence as 

a whole, would be sufficient to establish by 

clear and convincing evidence that, but for 

constitutional error, no reasonable 

factfinder would have found the applicant 

guilty of the underlying offense.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).

“Before a second or successive application permitted by this 

section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move 

in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the 

district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner has not shown that he received 

authorization from the Ninth Circuit. This case is dismissed 

without prejudice and Petitioner may proceed with a successive 

petition if he obtains permission from the Circuit. 

II

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for the reasons 

stated above. Because reasonable jurists would not find the 

result here debatable, a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is 

DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) 

(standard for COA). The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/19/2016

________________________

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.16\Reed6192.dis.docx

Case 3:16-cv-06192-TEH Document 8 Filed 12/19/16 Page 2 of 2