Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01039/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01039-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

See Vigil v.Yates, No. 07-2061 MJJ (PR); Vigil v. Yates, No. 07-5288 MJJ

(PR); Vigil v. Yates, No. 09-0704 JF(PR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE PAUL VIGIL,

Petitioner,

 vs.

DAVE DAVEY, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 16-1039 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 2, 10)

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding pro se, has filed a

habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction in Santa

Clara County Superior Court in 1998 for failing to register as a sex offender. Petitioner

challenged this same conviction in a prior petition filed in this court, Vigil v. Garcia, No.

02-1490 MJJ (PR), which was denied on its merits. Petitioner has been informed on

prior occasions that in he must first obtain from the United States Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit an order authorizing this Court to consider a second or successive

petition from him.1

 See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). That is still the case. He has not

indicated that he has received such authorization. 

Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing his claims in

a new case after he has obtained the necessary authorization from the United States

Case 4:16-cv-01039-JSW Document 12 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Court of Appeals. In light of this dismissal, Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary

hearing is DENIED. 

Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires a district court to

rule on whether a Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability in the same order

in which the petition is decided. No reasonable jurist would find this Court's denial of

his claim on procedural grounds debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000). Consequently, no certificate of appealability is warranted in this case.

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 3, 2016 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-01039-JSW Document 12 Filed 05/03/16 Page 2 of 2