Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02347/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02347-0/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

 1The application to proceed in forma pauperis was inadvertently filed in a new case, No. C

08-2386 RMW (PR). The clerk has been instructed to close the new case and file the application

in this case. 

Order of Dismissal

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.08\Dickerson347dis.wpd 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LADELL DICKERSON, 

Petitioner,

 v.

DARRAL ADAMS, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 08-2347 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

GRANTING LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS;

INSTRUCTIONS TO

CLERK 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED.1

 Petitioner filed a previous habeas action with this court, in case no. C 00-

21087 RMW (PR), challenging the same conviction and sentence raised in the instant

petition. In this earlier habeas action, the court denied the petition on the merits on

January 29, 2004. The court will DISMISS the instant petition without prejudice as a

second or successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

DISCUSSION

A district court must dismiss claims presented in a second or successive habeas

petition challenging the same conviction and sentence unless the claims presented in the

*E-FILED - 7/11/08*

Case 5:08-cv-02347-RMW Document 3 Filed 07/11/08 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

Order of Dismissal

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.08\Dickerson347dis.wpd 2

previous petition were denied for failure to exhaust. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1); 

Babbitt v. Woodford, 177 F.3d 744, 745-46 (9th Cir. 1999). Additionally, a district court

must dismiss any new claims raised in a successive petition unless the petitioner received

an order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 

Here, the instant petition challenges the same conviction and sentence as

petitioner’s earlier habeas action, which was denied on the merits. Petitioner has not

presented an order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this court to

consider any new claims. Accordingly, this court must dismiss the instant petition in its

entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

CONCLUSION

The instant habeas petition is DISMISSED as a second and successive petition

without prejudice to refiling after petitioner obtains the necessary certification from the

Ninth Circuit. 

The court has received a notice of change of address from petitioner, which was

filed in his other case, No. C 08-2386 RMW (PR). The clerk shall change the address on

the docket in this matter as well to reflect petitioner’s updated address as follows:

Ladell Dickerson 

P-48453 

California Men's Colony State Prison 

Cell #3300 X 

P.O. Box 8101 

San Luis Obispo, CA 93409-8101 

The clerk shall terminate any pending motions and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE

 United States District Judge

7/7/08

Case 5:08-cv-02347-RMW Document 3 Filed 07/11/08 Page 2 of 2