Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02428/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02428-0/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

19cv2428 AJB (WVG)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE, Warden, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 19cv2428 AJB (WVG)

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF 

SUCCESSIVE PETITION 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER 

PROVISION

On December 18, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The instant Petition, however, is not the first Petition for a 

Writ of Habeas Corpus Petitioner has submitted to this Court challenging his March 4, 

2010 conviction in San Diego Superior Court case number SCD221955. On July 1, 

2011, Petitioner filed in a Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in case No. 

11cv1488. In that petition, Petitioner challenged his March 4, 2010 conviction as well. 

On October 20, 2015, this Court denied the petition on the merits. See Thomas v. Doe, 

Case No. 11cv1488 AJB (KSC), Order (Oct. 20, 2015) [ECF No. 88]. Petitioner did not 

file a notice of appeal in that case until over four years later, on November 21, 2019. See 

id., Not. of Appeal (Nov. 21, 2019) [ECF No. 90.] On December 17, 2019, the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner’s appeal as untimely. See Thomas v. 

Atchley, et al., No. 19-56384 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2019) [ECF No. 92].

Case 3:19-cv-02428-AJB-WVG Document 2 Filed 01/08/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv2428 AJB (WVG)

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

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); see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007) (a petition is 

successive where it challenges “the same custody imposed by the same judgment of a 

state court” as a prior petition). A successive application is permissible “only if it rests 

on a new rule of constitutional law, facts that were previously unavailable, or facts that 

would be sufficient to show constitutional error in the petitioner’s conviction.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(2). “Even if a petitioner can demonstrate that he qualifies for one of these 

exceptions, he must seek authorization from the court of appeals before filing his new 

petition with the district court.” Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Here, there is no indication the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Petitioner 

leave to file a successive petition.

CONCLUSION

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

Circuit Court of Appeals 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. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach a blank 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-02428-AJB-WVG Document 2 Filed 01/08/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2