Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00594/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00594-0/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)

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM CARTER, Civil No. 12-0594 BEN (PCL) 

Petitioner, 

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF 

vs. SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, GATEKEEPER PROVISION 

Respondent. 

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

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The 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 ofHabeas Corpus Petitioner has submitted 

to this Court challenging his December 1, 1994 conviction in San Diego Superior Court Case No. 

SCD104621. On June 10, 1998, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus in 

Case No. 98-cv-1 089. In that petition, Petitioner challenged his conviction in San Diego Superior Court 

Case No. SCD104621 as well. On July 6, 1999, this Court denied the petition on the merits. (See Order 

filed July 6, 1999 in Case No. 98cv0594 B (JFS) [Doc. No. 10].) Petitioner requested a certificate of 

appealability in the Ninth Circuit, which was denied on December 16, 1999. (See Order in Carter v. 

Rice, No. 99-56400 (9th Cir. Dec. 16, 1999).) 

-1- 12cv0594 

Case 3:12-cv-00594-BEN-PCL Document 2 Filed 03/15/12 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 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, 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 

ofAppeals 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 send 

Petitioner a blank Ninth Circuit Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/~ DATED: MarchZL, 2012 7­

-2- 12cv0594 

Case 3:12-cv-00594-BEN-PCL Document 2 Filed 03/15/12 Page 2 of 2