Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02632/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02632-0/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\DMS\10cv2632 dismiss.wpd, 122810 -1- 10cv2632

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY ROMERO, Civil No. 10-2632 DMS (BLM)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF

SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)

GATEKEEPER PROVISION

vs.

DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al, 

Respondents.

Petitioner, Rodney Romero, 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 for appointment

of counsel. The Court does not rule on Petitioner’s request for counsel because this case is

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

PETITION BARRED BY GATEKEEPER PROVISION

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

submitted to this Court challenging his April 15, 1997 conviction in San Diego Superior Court

case No. SCN 048430. On August 2, 2000, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus in case No. 00cv1535. In that petition, Petitioner challenged his conviction in

San Diego Superior Court case No. SCN 048430 as well. On February 4, 2002, this Court

denied the petition on the merits. (See Order filed February 4, 2002 in case No. 00cv1535 IEG

(JFS) [Doc. No. 30].) Petitioner appealed that determination. On April 21, 2003, the Ninth

Case 3:10-cv-02632-DMS-BLM Document 4 Filed 12/28/10 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\DMS\10cv2632 dismiss.wpd, 122810 -2- 10cv2632

Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the petition. (See Order in Romero v. Galaza,

No. 02-55358 (9th Cir. May 20, 2003).) On October 13, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals denied Petitioner’s application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 petition. (See Order in Romero v. Neotti, No. 10-72278 (9th Cir. Oct. 13, 2010).) 

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)(3)(A). Here, the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Petitioner’s request to file a successive petition.

CONCLUSION

Because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has not granted Petitioner leave to file a

successive petition, this Court cannot consider his Petition. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES

this action without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 28, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02632-DMS-BLM Document 4 Filed 12/28/10 Page 2 of 2