Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00382/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00382-0/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

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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\J\08cv0382 Successive.wpd, 3178 -1- 08cv0382

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROZELL DULANEY, Civil No. 08-0382 J (NLS)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF

SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)

GATEKEEPER PROVISION

vs.

JOHN MARSHALL, Director, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner, Rozell Dulaney, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The instant Petition is not the first Petition for

a Writ of Habeas Corpus that Petitioner has submitted to this Court challenging his conviction

in San Diego Superior Court case No. SCD137017. Thus, this case is summarily dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) as indicated below. 

PETITION BARRED BY GATEKEEPER PROVISION

On February 27, 2001, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

in case No. 01cv0344. In that petition, Petitioner challenged his conviction in San Diego

Superior Court case No. SCD 137017. On December 3, 2001, this Court denied the petition on

the merits. (See Order filed December 3, 2001in case No. 01cv0344 J (NLS) [Doc. No. 13].)

Petitioner filed a motion for rehearing with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which was

construed by the court as a request for a certificate of appealability. On January 10, 2003, the

Case 3:08-cv-00382-J-NLS Document 2 Filed 03/17/08 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\J\08cv0382 Successive.wpd, 3178 -2- 08cv0382

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the motion. (See Order in Dulaney v. Roe, No. 02-55167

(9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2003).) 

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). 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 the Court is directed to attach a blank Ninth Circuit Application for Leave to File

Second or Successive Petition for Petitioner’s convenience.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 17, 2008

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00382-J-NLS Document 2 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 2