Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02732/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02732-0/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

18cv2732-BTM (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

JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Civil Case No. 18cv2732-BTM (JLB)

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF 

SUCCESSIVE PETITION 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(B)(3)(a) GATEKEEPER 

PROVISION

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1998 conviction in San Diego County 

Superior Court case number SCN085554, in light of the intervening case of Class v. United 

States, 583 U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 798 (2018) (holding that a guilty plea by itself does not bar 

a defendant from challenging the constitutionality of a conviction on appeal). (ECF No. 

1.) He has also filed a Motion for to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.)

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 1998 conviction in San Diego Superior Court 

case number SCN08554. On November 13, 2017, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition 

for a Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging that same conviction. (See Pet. filed 11/13/17

Case 3:18-cv-02732-BTM-JLB Document 3 Filed 12/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv2732-BTM (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

[ECF No. 1] in So.Dist.Ca. Civil Case No. 17cv2309-H (WVG).) On June 6, 2018, this 

Court denied the petition on the basis it was not filed within the applicable statute of 

limitations, and, alternately, on the merits of the claims presented. (See Order filed 6/6/18 

[ECF No. 24] in So.Dist.Ca. Civil Case No. 17cv2309-H (WVG).) Petitioner filed a 

motion for relief from judgment in that case on June 14, 2018, which the Court construed 

as a second or successive petition and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (See Order filed 

9/11/18 [ECF No. 30] in So.Dist.Ca. Civil Case No. 17cv2309-H (WVG).) Petitioner did 

not appeal.

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); 

Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007) (a petition is successive where it challenges 

“the same custody imposed by the same judgment of a state court” as a prior petition). 

Although Petitioner attempts to challenge his conviction by showing “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,” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A), he must first 

obtain authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a petition in this Court. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (“Before a second or successive application permitted by 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.”) Here, 

Petitioner has left blank the box in the section of the petition form where it asks whether 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted him leave to file a successive petition. (ECF 

No. 1 at 5.) 

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 

Case 3:18-cv-02732-BTM-JLB Document 3 Filed 12/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv2732-BTM (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

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 Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of 

Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank Application for Leave to File a Second or 

Successive Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a copy of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 17, 2018 _________________________________

 Barry Ted Moskowitz

 United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02732-BTM-JLB Document 3 Filed 12/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3