Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01132/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01132-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD V. SHELL, Civil No. 14-1132 LAB (WVG)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF

SUCCESSIVE PETITION

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER

PROVISION

vs.

DIANE JONES, et al.,

Respondents.

On April 9, 2014, Petitioner, Edward V. Shell, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of California [ECF No. 1]. On April 16,

2014, he filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF NO. 5]. The Court does not

rule on Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis 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 1997 conviction in San Diego Superior Court

case No. SCD126559. On May 24, 2000, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus in case No. 00cv1065 BTM (RBB). In that petition, Petitioner

challenged his conviction in San Diego Superior Court case No. SCD126559 as well. 

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\14cv1132_successive.wpd, 5714 -1- 14cv1132

Case 3:14-cv-01132-LAB-WVG Document 12 Filed 05/07/14 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

On March 9, 2001, this Court denied the petition on the merits. (See Order filed Mar.

9, 2000 in case No. 00cv1065 BTM (RBB) [Doc. No. 19].) Petitioner appealed that

determination. On November 2, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the

dismissal. (See Order in Shell v. Terhune, No. 01-55609 (9th Cir. Nov. 2, 2002).) 

Petitioner filed another habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this

Court on November 17, 2008, in case number 08cv2159 H (POR). That petition was

dismissed as successive pursuant to 2244(b)(3)(A). (See Order in case no. 08cv2159 H

(POR) [ECF No. 10].) The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner permission to file a

successive petition on September 26, 2013. (See Order in Shell v. Hill, No. 13-72732

(9th Cir. Sept. 26, 2013).)

Petitioner is now seeking to challenge the same conviction he challenged in his

prior federal habeas petitions. Unless a petitioner shows he orshe 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 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: May 7, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\14cv1132_successive.wpd, 5714 -2- 14cv1132

Case 3:14-cv-01132-LAB-WVG Document 12 Filed 05/07/14 Page 2 of 2