Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01041/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01041-0/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

18cv1041 CAB (MDD)

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

ANDRES CAMARENA HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

JOE A. LIZZARRAGA, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv1041 CAB (MDD)

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF 

SUCCESSIVE PETITION 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER 

PROVISION

Petitioner, Andres Camarena Hernandez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has 

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together 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 April 22, 2014 conviction in San Diego 

Superior Court case No. SCN 319924. On May 18, 2016, Petitioner filed in this Court a 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in case No. 16cv1211 CAB (WVG). In that petition, 

Petitioner challenged his conviction in San Diego Superior Court case No. SCN 319924 

as well. On September 7, 2017, this Court denied the petition on the merits. (See Order 

Case 3:18-cv-01041-CAB-MDD Document 3 Filed 05/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv1041 CAB (MDD)

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

filed September 7, 2017 in case No. 16cv1211 CAB (WVG) [ECF No. 29].) Petitioner 

appealed that determination. On May 4, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied 

Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability. (See Order in Hernandez v. Kernan, 

No. 17-56570 (9th Cir. May 4, 2018).) 

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 Court will mail Petitioner a blank Application for 

Leave to File a Second or Successive Petition or Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or 

§ 2255 together with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01041-CAB-MDD Document 3 Filed 05/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2