Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06702/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06702-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE,

Petitioner,

v.

A.K. SCRIBNER

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-6702-TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

DKT. NOS. 1, 4

Ruchell Cinque Magee has filed an ex parte motion for 

enforcement of a Rule 60(b) order that the Court construes as a 

pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 

2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. He has also filed a 

motion to disqualify the undersigned judge. Docket No. 4.

I

This instant petition challenges Petitioner’s 1975 

conviction and life sentence from the Santa Clara Superior Court. 

His first federal Petition challenging this conviction and 

sentence was denied on May 10, 1995. See Magee v. Marshall, No. 

C-93-3637 DLJ, Docket No. 42. Petitioner has since filed many 

federal habeas and civil rights actions attacking the same

conviction. On December 10, 2015, this Court dismissed as 

successive his most recently filed habeas petition challenging

this conviction. See Magee v. Soto, No. C-15-5234 TEH, Docket 

No. 6. 

Case 3:16-cv-06702-TEH Document 6 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

A second or successive petition may not be filed in this 

Court unless Petitioner first obtains from the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit an order authorizing this 

Court to consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3)(A). 

Petitioner has not obtained such an order from the Ninth Circuit. 

Accordingly, this Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to 

refiling if Petitioner obtains the requisite Order.

Petitioner also seeks enforcement of a 2005 order that 

vacated a 1995 pre-filing review order in this Court. However, 

that pre-filing review order has been vacated and Petitioner’s 

cases, including this case, have been reviewed. As noted many 

times, to proceed with a successive petition, Petitioner must 

obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit. 

II

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s petition for writ of 

habeas corpus (Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice to 

refiling if Petitioner obtains the requisite Order from the Ninth 

Circuit. Petitioner’s motion to disqualify the undersigned is 

DENIED as frivolous and meritless. Docket No. 4. Because 

reasonable jurists would not find the result here debatable, a 

certificate of appealability (“COA”) is DENIED. See Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (standard for COA). The 

clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/05/2016

________________________

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.16\Magee6702.dis.docx

Case 3:16-cv-06702-TEH Document 6 Filed 12/05/16 Page 2 of 2