Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01861/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01861-2/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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EBER GENE RUTH,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. /

No. C 09-1861 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Eber Gene Ruth, a prisoner at Mule Creek State Prison, filed a pro se petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition is not his first federal habeas petition

concerning his 1993 murder conviction from the Del Norte County Superior Court. His first

habeas petition was filed on July 24, 1996 and denied on the merits on July 25, 1997. See Ruth

v. Cambra, N. D. Cal. No. C 96-2626 SBA. Three later petitions filed by Ruth were dismissed

without prejudice as successive. See Ruth v. Cambra, No. C 01-1502 SBA; Ruth v. Warden, No.

C 02-1124 SBA; Ruth v. Warden, No. C 02-1578 SBA. He also sought permission from the

Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive petition, but the Ninth Circuit denied his request.

See Ruth v. Warden, Ninth Cir. No. 06-74362. 

A second or successive petition may not be filed in this court unless the petitioner first

obtains from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit an order authorizing this

court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Ruth has not obtained such an order

from the Ninth Circuit. This court will not entertain a new petition from Ruth until he first

Case 3:09-cv-01861-SI Document 8 Filed 05/05/10 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 2

obtains permission from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to file such a petition. This

action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Ruth filing a petition in this court after he obtains

the necessary order from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

If Ruth wants to attempt to obtain the necessary order from the Ninth Circuit, he should

very clearly mark the first page of his document as a "MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING

DISTRICT COURT TO CONSIDER SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)" rather than labeling it as a habeas petition because the Ninth

Circuit clerk's office is apt to simply forward to this court any document labeled as a habeas

petition. He also should mail the motion to the Ninth Circuit (at 95 Seventh Street, San

Francisco, CA 94103), rather than to this court. In his motion to the Ninth Circuit, he should

explain how he meets the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

Respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (Docket # 6.) Petitioner's motion to

appeal is DENIED. (Docket # 7.) 

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 5, 2010 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01861-SI Document 8 Filed 05/05/10 Page 2 of 2