Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02632/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02632-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSSELL D. BURGESS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-09-2632 JAM EFB P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES,

Respondent. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 /

Petitioner, a prisoner without counsel, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court has reviewed the petition as required by Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, and finds that the petition appears to be second or

successive. Thus, petitioner must show either that the petition is not second or successive or that

he has obtained permission to proceed from the appellate court. 

Before filing a second or successive petition in a district court, a petitioner must obtain

from the appellate court “an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Without an order from the appellate court, the district court is without

jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152

(2007). A petition is second or successive if it makes “claims contesting the same custody

imposed by the same judgment of a state court” that the petitioner previously challenged, and on

Case 2:09-cv-02632-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 06/22/10 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

2

which the federal court issued a decision on the merits. Id. at 153; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 485-486 (2000). 

In the present action, petitioner challenges his April 2000 conviction for first degree

murder. The court has examined its records, and finds that petitioner, proceeding under an aka,

challenged the same conviction in case number No. Civ. S-03-0588 JAM EFB. That petition was

denied on the merits. Therefore, it appears that petitioner is challenging the same judgment that

he previously challenged and which has now been adjudicated on the merits. Thus, it appears that

the September 21, 2009, petition is second or successive. Petitioner offers no evidence that the

appellate court has authorized this court to consider a second or successive petition.

Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that petitioner shall, within 30 days of the date this

order is served, demonstrate either that this petition is not second or successive or submit

evidence that the appellate court has authorized this court to consider the petition. Petitioner’s

failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed

upon the ground that petitioner has without authorization filed a second or successive petition. 

Dated: June 22, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02632-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 2