Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01323/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01323-0/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

17cv1323 JAH (JLB)

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

HUTTON F. MILLER,

Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17cv1323 JAH (JLB)

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS 

PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

AS SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE

On June 28, 2017 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In this action Petitioner is 

challenging his October 26, 1999, San Diego County Superior Court conviction and 

sentence in Case No. SCE195569. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) 

PRIOR FEDERAL HABEAS PETITIONS DENIED ON THE MERITS

On June 20, 2008, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus in So. Dist. Ca. Civil Case No. 08cv1093 BEN (POR). (See Petition in So. Dist. 

Ca. Civil Case No. 08cv1093 BEN (POR), ECF No. 1.) In that petition, Petitioner also 

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

SCE195569. On May 27, 2010, this Court dismissed the petition because it had been 

filed after the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. (See Order filed 5/27/10 in 

Case 3:17-cv-01323-JAH-JLB Document 3 Filed 07/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv1323 JAH (JLB)

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

So. Dist. Ca. Civil Case No. 08cv1093 BEN (POR), ECF No. 40.) Petitioner did not 

appeal that decision.

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); McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) (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)). 

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. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a blank Ninth 

Circuit Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition together with a 

copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 10, 2017 ________________________________________

John A. Houston

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-01323-JAH-JLB Document 3 Filed 07/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2