Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02749/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02749-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARKE SHELDON LOWE, Civil No. 15cv2749-BAS (DHB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

AS SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE

vs.

RAY FISHER, Warden,

Respondent.

On December 7, 2015, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for

a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his July 16, 2004 San Diego

County Superior Court conviction and sentence in Case No. SCD177421. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) 

Petitioner has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) The Court does

not rule on Petitioner’s in forma pauperis status because this case is summarily dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) as indicated below.

The instant Petition is not the first Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Petitioner has

submitted to this Court challenging his July 16, 2004 conviction in San Diego Superior Court

case No. SCD177421. On November 21, 2007, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for a Writ

of Habeas Corpus in So. Dist. Ca. Civil Case No. 07cv2232-LAB (CAB). In that petition,

Petitioner also challenged his conviction in San Diego Superior Court case No. SCD177421. 

-1- 15cv2749

Case 3:15-cv-02749-BAS-DHB Document 3 Filed 12/09/15 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

(See Lowe v. Tilton, No. 07cv2232-LAB (CAB), ECF No. 1.) On August 8, 2008, this Court

granted respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition for Petitioner’s failure to file

his petition within the one-year statue of limitations. (See Order filed Aug. 8, 2008 in So. Dist.

Ca. Civil Case No. 07cv2232-LAB (CAB), ECF No. 13.) Petitioner appealed that determination. 

On November 24, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s dismissal. (Id.,

ECF No. 26, Lowe v. Tilton, No. 08-56737 (9th Cir. Nov. 24, 2010).) This Court thereafter

denied Petitioner’s motions for post-conviction relief. (See Order filed Aug. 26, 2013 in So.

Dist. Ca. Civil Case No. 07cv2232 LAB (CAB), ECF No. 29 (denying Rule 60(b) Motion for

Relief from Judgment); id., Order filed Nov. 25, 2015, ECF No. 44 (denying request to renew

Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment).)1

INSTANT PETITION BARRED BY GATEKEEPER PROVISION

Petitioner is now seeking to challenge the same conviction he challenged in his prior

federal habeas petition, contending the instant petition is not second or successive because his

first petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, rather than on the merits, as it was dismissed

for failure to file within the one-year statute of limitations. (Pet. at 14.) However, dismissal for

failure to comply with the one-year statute of limitations renders subsequent petitions

challenging the same conviction or sentence “second or successive” under 2244(b). McNabb

v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009). 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. (See Pet. at 5.) In fact, Petitioner has submitted a

copy of a December 17, 2014 Order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denying him

permission to file a second or successive petition. (Pet. at 94-95.)

/ / /

This is in fact the third habeas petition filed in this Court by Petitioner challenging this 1

conviction. The Court previously dismissed as successive a habeas petition filed by Petitioner

challenging the same conviction. See Order filed Oct. 4, 2012 in So. Dist. Ca. Civil Case No. 12cv2398-

H (PCL), ECF No. 2. 

-2- 15cv2749

Case 3:15-cv-02749-BAS-DHB Document 3 Filed 12/09/15 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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 8, 2015 ___________________________________

 Cynthia Bashant

United States District Judge

-3- 15cv2749

Case 3:15-cv-02749-BAS-DHB Document 3 Filed 12/09/15 Page 3 of 3