Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02074/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02074-0/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

-1- 07cv2074

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL EDWARD EQUELS, Civil No. 07cv2074 J (RBB)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF

SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)

GATEKEEPER PROVISION

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner, Michael Edward Equels, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

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 June 16, 1994, conviction in San Diego Superior Court

case No. SCN 143084. On October 20, 1998, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus in case No. 98cv1902. In that petition, Petitioner challenged his conviction

in San Diego Superior Court case No. SCN 143084 as well. On April 23, 1999, this Court

denied the petition on the merits. (See Order filed April 23, 1999 in case No. 98cv1902 K

(LAB) [Doc. No. 17].) Petitioner appealed that determination. On July 28, 2000, the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and affirmed this Court’s decision. (See Order

in Equels v. Hubbard, No. 99-56456 (9th Cir. July 28, 2000).) 

Case 3:07-cv-02074-J-RBB Document 2 Filed 12/14/07 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

27

28

-2- 07cv2074

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. Furthermore, Petitioner argues that he is entitled to relief under the recently decided

United States Supreme Court case Cunningham v. California, 127 S.Ct. 856 (2007). However,

Petitioner has not demonstrated that his “claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made

retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable”

as required under section 2244(b)(2)(A). 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A). 

CONCLUSION

Because there is no indication Petitioner has obtained permission from the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals to file a successive petition, nor that Cunningham v. California may be

retroactively applied to his claim, this Court cannot consider his Petition. Accordingly, the

Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 14, 2007

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

cc: All Parties of Record

Case 3:07-cv-02074-J-RBB Document 2 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 2