Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06757/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06757-0/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)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA S. HERRERA,

Petitioner,

v.

SHAWN HATTON,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-06757-VC (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS; DENYING MOTION TO 

STAY

Re: Dkt. Nos. 8, 9

Joshua S. Herrera filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. On January 28, 2019, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as a second or 

successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, arguing Herrera previously filed a federal habeas 

petition challenging the same convictions he challenges in this petition. 

On March 6, 2013, Herrera filed a federal habeas petition challenging his convictions in 

the Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case Number CC-313775, for home invasion robbery, 

burglary, and assault with a deadly weapon, with gang and gun enhancements. See Herrera v. 

Grounds, C 13-1016 LHK (PR), ECF No. 1. The Court granted the respondent’s motion to 

dismiss the petition as untimely and entered judgment. Id., ECF Nos. 17, 18. The Ninth Circuit 

denied Herrera’s request for a certificate of appealability and the Supreme Court denied his

petition for a writ of certiorari. Id., ECF Nos. 25, 27. 

In this petition, Herrera also challenges his convictions in the Santa Clara County 

Superior Court, Case Number CC-313775. ECF No. 1 at 1,3. 

28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(A) and (C) state:

(b)(3)(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by 

Case 3:18-cv-06757-VC Document 16 Filed 05/07/19 Page 1 of 2
2

this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in 

the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district 

court to consider the application.

(b)(3)(C) The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second 

or successive application only if it determines that the application 

makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the 

requirements of this subsection.

Because the dismissal of the first habeas petition for untimeliness is a disposition on the 

merits, Herrera’s further petition is a second or successive petition for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b). See McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 2009). 

In his opposition, Herrera acknowledges that this is a successive petition, but moves to

stay this petition while he obtains authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file his petition in this 

Court. However, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this successive petition. See Burton v.

Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007) (without authorization from Court of Appeals to file 

successive petition, district court is without jurisdiction over it). Therefore, Herrera’s motion for 

a stay is denied and the motion to dismiss is granted. This petition is dismissed without 

prejudice. 

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, issue a separate judgment and close the 

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

May 7, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-06757-VC Document 16 Filed 05/07/19 Page 2 of 2