Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02268/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02268-0/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 

FILED
 ! OCT - 4 2011 ] 

W 

LERK us DISTRICT COURT 

RN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DepUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEVEN A. SEXTON, Civil No. 11-2268 BEN (BGS) 

URIBE, Warden, 

vs. 

Petitioner, 

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF 

SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) 

GATEKEEPER PROVISION 

Respondent. 

Petitioner Steven A. Sexton, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The 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 May 23,2002 conviction in San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 

SCE 220004. On May 14,2009, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus in 

Case No. 09-cv-l069. In that petition, Petitioner challenged his conviction in San Diego County 

Superior Court Case No. SCE 220004 as well. On July 19,2010,this Court granted respondent's motion 

to dismiss and dismissed the petition for Petitioner's failure to file his petition within the one-year statute 

of limitations. (See Order filed July 19, 2010 in Case No. 09-cv-l069 W (PaR) [Doc. No. 18].) 

Petitioner did not appeal that determination. 

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 

-1- IIcv2268 

Case 3:11-cv-02268-BEN-BGS Document 2 Filed 10/04/11 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 

v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009); Reyes v. Vaughn, 276 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1029 (C.D. Cal. 

2003) (same); Bridgwater v. Scriben, No. 07-CV-1340, 2007 WL 2262760, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 

2007) (same). 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 ofAppeals has granted Petitioner leave to file a successive petition. 

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

ofAppeals 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 send 

Petitioner a blank Ninth Circuit Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October~, 2011 

-2- llcv2268 

Case 3:11-cv-02268-BEN-BGS Document 2 Filed 10/04/11 Page 2 of 2