Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00858/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00858-0/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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Cato858dis 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES CATO, JR.,

Petitioner,

 vs.

M. SULLIVAN, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-0858 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AS MOOT

(Docket No. 2)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner

has paid the filing fee. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(docket no. 2) is DENIED as moot. Petitioner has filed two earlier habeas actions with

this Court, in C 99-21216 JF (PR) and C 05-1273 JF (PR), challenging the same

conviction and sentence raised in the instant petition. In case no. C 99-21216 JF (PR), the

Court denied Petitioner’s habeas petition on the merits on February 28, 2003. The Court

of Appeals dismissed Petitioner’s appeal on June 19, 2003. In case no. C 05-1273 JF

(PR), the Court dismissed Petitioner’s second habeas petition, as a second or successive

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). Similarly, the Court will DISMISS the

instant petition as a second or successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). 

**Original filed 8/31/06**

Case 5:06-cv-00858-JF Document 6 Filed 08/31/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Cato858dis 2

DISCUSSION

A district court must dismiss claims presented in a second or successive habeas

petition challenging the same conviction and sentence unless the claims presented in the

previous petition were denied for failure to exhaust. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1); Babbitt

v. Woodford, 177 F.3d 744, 745-46 (9th Cir. 1999). Additionally, a district court must

dismiss any new claims raised in a successive petition unless the petitioner received an

order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition. See

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), (3).

Here, Petitioner raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial

misconduct. See Petition at 5. Petitioner alleges that these claims contain new evidence

under “AEDPA (B)(i)(ii).” Id. The instant petition challenges the same conviction and

sentence as the earlier petition in case no. C 99-21216 JF (PR), this earlier habeas petition

was denied on the merits, and Petitioner has not presented an order from the Court of

Appeals authorizing this Court to consider any new claims. Accordingly, this Court must

dismiss the instant petition in its entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

CONCLUSION

The instant petition is DISMISSED without prejudice as a second and successive

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis (docket no. 2) is DENIED as moot as Petitioner has paid the filing fee. The

Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

8/31/06 /S/

Case 5:06-cv-00858-JF Document 6 Filed 08/31/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Cato858dis 3

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

James Cato, Jr.

H-35663

CSP - Corcoran

3A03-240 

P.O. Box 3461

Corcoran, CA 93212

Case 5:06-cv-00858-JF Document 6 Filed 08/31/06 Page 3 of 3