Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00226/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00226-1/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

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are “applicable to habeas corpus proceedings to the extent that the practice 1

in such proceedings are not set forth in the statutes of the United States and has heretofore conformed to the practice of civil

actions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(a)(2). Rule 11 also provides “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not

inconsistent with these rules, may be applied, when appropriate, to the petitions filed under these rules.” Rule 11, Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID ANDREWS,

Petitioner,

v.

L. E. SCRIBNER, WARDEN,

Respondent.

 /

1: 07 CV 0226 OWW WMW HC

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DISMISSING PETITION AS UNAUTHORIZED

SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE PETITION

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 2254. The court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition. Accordingly,

pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, the court hereby finds as follows. 1

The court finds that Petitioner has previously challenged the same conviction he now seeks to

Case 1:07-cv-00226-OWW -WMW Document 8 Filed 05/09/07 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

challenge in a prior petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court. That petition, Andrews v. Ryan,

CV F 04-5957 REC DLB HC, was closed and judgment was entered for Respondent on September

29, 2005. Therefore, the present petition, filed February 1, 2007, is a second or successive petition.

Under AEDPA's "gatekeeping" provisions, an applicant seeking to file a second or successive

petition must obtain from the appropriate court of appeals an order authorizing the district court to

consider the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Section 2244(b)(2) provides that 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 unless a certain set of requirements are met. 

A court of appeals may grant such an order only upon a showing that: 

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law made

retroactive to cases on collateral 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 underling the claim, if proven and viewed in the light of the

evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and

convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable

fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying

offense.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B). 

No such order authorizing a second or successive petition appears in the present case. 

Without such an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, this court

cannot consider the present petition. Therefore, it must be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling if

Petitioner obtains an order authorizing a second or successive petition from the Ninth Circuit;

2) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment for Petitioner and to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00226-OWW -WMW Document 8 Filed 05/09/07 Page 2 of 2