Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01038/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01038-0/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

16-1038 GPC (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

HARVEY EUGENE LARSON,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN STEW SHERMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16-1038 GPC (MDD)

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF 

SUCCESSIVE PETITION 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER 

PROVISION

Petitioner, Harvey Eugene Larson, 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 conviction in San Diego Superior Court case 

No. SCE195230. On July 7, 2009, Petitioner filed in this Court a First Amended Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus in case No. 09cv0745 L (PCL). In that petition, Petitioner 

challenged his conviction in San Diego Superior Court case No. SCE195230 as well. On 

February 25, 2011, this Court granted a motion to dismiss the petition as time barred. 

Case 3:16-cv-01038-GPC-MDD Document 3 Filed 05/11/16 Page 1 of 3
2

16-1038 GPC (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

(See Order filed Feb. 25, 2011 in case No. 09cv0745 L (PCL) [Doc. No. 51].) Petitioner 

appealed that determination. On August 23, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

denied a Certificate of Appealability. (See Order in Larson v. Attorney General, No. 11-

55606 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2012).) 

Petitioner again challenged his conviction in San Diego County Superior Court 

case no. SCE195230 in this Court in case No. 14cv2083 JAH (JMA). That case was 

dismissed as successive on September 20, 2014 pursuant. (See Order filed September 10, 

2014 in case No. 14cv2083 JAH (JMA) [Doc. No. 3].)

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

prior federal habeas petitions. 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); McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that 

dismissal for failure to comply with one-year statute of limitations renders subsequent 

petitions challenging the same conviction or sentence “second or successive” under 

2244(b)). 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 is directed to mail Petitioner a blank Application 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-01038-GPC-MDD Document 3 Filed 05/11/16 Page 2 of 3
3

16-1038 GPC (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

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

a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-01038-GPC-MDD Document 3 Filed 05/11/16 Page 3 of 3