Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01232/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01232-0/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

16cv1232 WQH (BGS)

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

WILLIAM ALLEN GARRETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY MACOMBER, Warden

Defendant.

Case No. 16cv1232 WQH (BGS)

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF 

SUCCESSIVE PETITION 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER 

PROVISION

Petitioner has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254, along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 October 24, 2012 conviction in San Diego

County Superior Court case number SCD235343. On June 30, 2014, Petitioner filed in a

Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in case No. 14cv1572 BEN (PCL). In that 

petition, Petitioner challenged his October 24, 2012 conviction as well. On April 15, 2015, 

this Court denied the petition on the merits. (See Order filed April 15, 2014 in case No. 

14cv1572 BEN (PCL) [ECF No. 46].) Petitioner appealed that determination. On January 

Case 3:16-cv-01232-WQH-BGS Document 3 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 2
2

16cv1232 WQH (BGS)

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

20, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s request for certificate of 

appealability. (See Order in Garrett v. Beard, No. 15-55761 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2016).) 

Petitioner is now seeking to challenge the sentence imposed as a result the 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); see also 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). A successive application is permissible “only if it rests on 

a new rule of constitutional law, facts that were previously unavailable, or facts that would 

be sufficient to show constitutional error in the petitioner's conviction.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(2). “Even if a petitioner can demonstrate that he qualifies for one of these 

exceptions, he must seek authorization from the court of appeals before filing his new 

petition with the district court.” Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir.2008). 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. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach a blank Ninth 

Circuit Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-01232-WQH-BGS Document 3 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 2