Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03034/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03034-1/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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSEPH BELL, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ERIC ARNOLD, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 16-cv-03034-PJH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Re: Dkt. No. 2 

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a November 8, 1996, conviction 

from the San Francisco County Superior Court. Petitioner argues that he received an 

unauthorized sentence in excess of the trial court’s jurisdiction because of state 

Propositions that were passed in 1990 before his trial and sentence. Court records 

indicate that petitioner already filed a habeas petition in this court challenging the same 

conviction. See Bell v. Lamarque, Case No. 99-cv-3562-PJH. That case was denied on 

June 20, 2003, and an appeal was later denied. The court ordered petitioner to show 

cause why this case should not dismissed as successive. Petitioner has filed a 

response. 

 “A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under 

section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed . . .” 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). This is the case unless, 

 (A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new 

rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on 

collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously 

unavailable; or 

 (B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have 

Case 4:16-cv-03034-PJH Document 7 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

28 

dis

au

au

pe

Da

\\can

U.S.C. § 2

“Before

strict court, 

thorizing th

Petition

thorization 

rmission fro

1. 

2. 

IT IS S

ated: Augus

ndoak.cand.circ9

been disc

diligence; a

 (ii) t

in light of 

establish 

constitution

found the a

2244(b)(2). 

e a second 

the applica

he district co

ner has sub

to file a new

om the Nint

Petitioner’s

The case is

SO ORDER

st 1, 2016 

9.dcn\data\users

covered pre

and 

the facts un

the eviden

by clear a

nal error, 

applicant gu

or success

ant shall mo

ourt to cons

bmitted a re

w petition. 

th Circuit he

s motion for

s DISMISS

RED. 

\PJHALL\_psp\2

2

eviously th

nderlying th

nce as a w

and convin

no reason

uilty of the u

sive applica

ove in the a

sider the ap

esponse bu

The case i

e may refile

CONCLU

r appoint of

SED and a c

2016\2016_03034

hrough the

he claim, if 

whole, wou

ncing evide

nable factf

underlying 

ation permit

appropriate 

pplication.” 

ut has failed

is therefore

e this case

USION 

f counsel (D

certificate o

PH

Un

4_Bell_v_Arnold

e exercise 

proven and

uld be suff

ence that, 

finder wou

offense. 

tted by this 

court of ap

 28 U.S.C. 

d to demons

e dismissed

Docket No. 

of appealab

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

d_(PSP)\16-cv-03

of due 

d viewed 

ficient to 

but for 

uld have 

section is f

ppeals for a

§ 2244(b)(

strate the h

d. If petition

2) is DENI

bility is DEN

HAMILTON

s District Ju

3034-PJH-dis.do

filed in the 

n order 

(3)(A). 

he received

ner obtains 

ED. 

NIED. 

N

udge 

ocx

Case 4:16-cv-03034-PJH Document 7 Filed 08/01/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

JO

ER

Dis

sai

dep

rec

Jos

K-3

P.O

Va

Da

OSEPH BEL

v. 

RIC ARNOL

I, the un

strict Court, 

That on

d copy(ies) i

positing said

ceptacle loca

seph Bell 

30059 

O. Box 4000

acaville, CA 

ated: August 

LL, 

Plaintiff, 

LD, 

Defendant.

ndersigned, 

Northern Di

n August 1, 2

in a postage 

d envelope in

ated in the Cl

0

95696 

1, 2016 

UNITED

NORTHER

.

hereby certi

istrict of Cal

2016, I SERV

paid envelo

n the U.S. M

lerk's office.

3

D STATES D

RN DISTRIC

fy that I am 

lifornia. 

VED a true 

ope addressed

Mail, or by pla

.

Su

Cl

By

D

H

DISTRICT C

CT OF CALI

Case No. 1

CERTIFIC

an employe

and correct c

d to the pers

acing said co

usan Y. Soon

lerk, United

y:_________

Doug Merry, 

Honorable PH

COURT 

IFORNIA 

16-cv-03034

CATE OF S

ee in the Offi

copy(ies) of

son(s) herein

opy(ies) into

ng 

d States Distr

___________

Deputy Cler

HYLLIS J. H

4-PJH 

SERVICE 

ice of the Cl

f the attached

nafter listed, 

o an inter-off

rict Court 

_______ 

rk to the 

HAMILTON

erk, U.S. 

d, by placing

by 

ffice delivery

N

g

y

Case 4:16-cv-03034-PJH Document 7 Filed 08/01/16 Page 3 of 3