Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01747/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01747-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\10cv1747-Dismiss.wpd, 82610 -1- 10cv1747

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMEKO MALONE, Civil No. 10cv1747-DMS (WMc)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF SECOND

OR SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)

GATEKEEPER PROVISION

v.

GARY SANDOR, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner Tomeko Malone, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition

for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2003 San Diego

Superior Court conviction in San Diego Superior Court Case No. SCD171069 and associated

sentence of 11 years in prison, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court

does not rule on Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because this case is

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

PRIOR FEDERAL HABEAS PETITIONS DENIED ON THE MERITS

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

submitted to this Court challenging his 2003 conviction and sentence of 11 years in prison in San

Diego Superior Court Case No. SCD171069.

On July 31, 2006, Petitioner filed in this Court a First Amended Petition for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus in case No. 06cv169-DMS (RBB). In that federal habeas petition, Malone

challenged the same conviction he challenges here, his 2003 conviction in San Diego Superior

Case 3:10-cv-01747-DMS-WMC Document 3 Filed 08/26/10 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\10cv1747-Dismiss.wpd, 82610 -2- 10cv1747

Court case No. SCD171069 and resultant sentence of 11 years in prison. (See First Amended

Petition filed July 31, 2006 at p. 1-2 [Doc. No. 19] in SO. DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE NO. 06cv169-

DMS (RBB).) On August 12, 2008, this Court denied the petition on the merits of the claims

presented. (See Order filed Aug. 12, 2008 [Doc. No. 45] in SO. DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE NO.

06cv169-DMS (RBB).) This Court subsequently denied a Certificate of Appealability. (See

Order filed Sept. 11, 2008 [Doc. No. 49] in SO. DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE NO. 06cv169-DMS

(RBB).) Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after that court

also denied a Certificate of Appealability. (See Order filed July 30, 2009 [Doc. No. 52] in SO.

DIST. CA. CIVIL CASE NO. 06cv169-DMS (RBB).) 

INSTANT PETITION BARRED BY GATEKEEPER PROVISION

Petitioner is now seeking to challenge the same conviction and sentence 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 second or

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 second or successive petition. 

The instant Petition is successive even though Petitioner now raises claims regarding

imposition of his sentence, whereas his prior petition raised claims focusing on his conviction,

because Petitioner could have raised the claims in his prior federal petition. See Hill v. Alaska,

297 F.3d 895, 897-98 (9th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that § 2244(b) codified the “abuse of the writ”

doctrine which “occurs when a petitioner raises a habeas claim that could have been raised in

an earlier petition were it not for inexcusable neglect.”), citing McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467,

493 (1991). 

CONCLUSION

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

Court of Appeals to file a second or successive petition, this Court cannot consider his Petition.

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice to Petitioner’s filing a petition

in this court if he obtains the necessary order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The

Case 3:10-cv-01747-DMS-WMC Document 3 Filed 08/26/10 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\10cv1747-Dismiss.wpd, 82610 -3- 10cv1747

Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a blank Ninth Circuit Application for Leave to File Second

or Successive Petition along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 26, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

CC: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:10-cv-01747-DMS-WMC Document 3 Filed 08/26/10 Page 3 of 3