Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00008/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00008-1/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

DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424

Federal Defender

DAVID M. PORTER, Bar #127024

Assistant Federal Defender

801 I Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 498-5700

Attorney for Petitioner

ANTHONY B. TILLMAN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY B. TILLMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

SUE HUBBARD, Warden,

Respondent.

_______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. Civ. S-06-0008 DFL CMK P

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Petitioner, ANTHONY B. TILLMAN, filed a pro se federal habeas corpus

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Northern District of

California on November 30, 2005. The action was transferred to this

Court on January 3, 2006. On March 27, 2006, this Court appointed the

Federal Defender’s Office to represent Mr. Tillman, and set a briefing

schedule. On May 10, 2006, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the

action on the grounds that the petition is successive and filed beyond

the one-year statute of limitation. On May 19, 2006, petitioner filed a

response to the motion to dismiss.

Mr. Tillman filed a previous federal habeas corpus application with

this Court on November 7, 1990. Tillman v. State of California, No. Civ.

S 90-1387 GEB GGH. The petition was denied on the merits on December 14,

Case 2:06-cv-00008-DFL-CMK Document 11 Filed 07/20/06 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

2

1993, and on April 4, 1995, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment. 

Because Mr. Tillman filed a previous federal habeas corpus application

that was denied on the merits, the application filed on November 30, 2005

is a “successive habeas corpus application” within the meaning of 28

U.S.C. § 2244. Before filing such a petition, “the applicant shall move

in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district

court consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). While Mr.

Tillman filed a petition in the Ninth Circuit that the court deemed to be

an application for permission to file a second or successive petition,

the application was “denied without prejudice to file a new petition.” 

Tillman v. Borg, No. 97-80137. 

Because Mr. Tillman has not been granted leave by the Ninth Circuit

to file a second or successive habeas corpus application, this Court

lacks jurisdiction to entertain the November 30, 2005 application. 

Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001); Nuñez v. United

States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, this action shall

be transferred, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, to the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals. See United States v. Barrett, 178 F.3d 34, 41 n.1 (1st Cir.

1999); Coleman v. United States, 106 F.3d 339, 341 (10th Cir. 1997) (per

curiam); In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997); Liriano v. United

States, 95 F.3d 119, 122-23 (2d Cir. 1996).

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-00008-DFL-CMK Document 11 Filed 07/20/06 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

3

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that:

(1) This action is TRANSFERRED to the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals; and

(2) the status conference currently set for September 19, 2006 is

VACATED.

DATED: July 18, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00008-DFL-CMK Document 11 Filed 07/20/06 Page 3 of 3