Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03945/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03945-0/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

Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss as Second or Successive

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.09\Rodriguez945sos.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ANGEL RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

 vs.

M. S. EVANS, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-3945 RMW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS AS SECOND OR

SUCCESSIVE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court ordered respondent to show cause why the petition

should not be granted. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as a second or

successive petition. Although given an opportunity, petitioner did not file an opposition. Based

upon the papers submitted, the court concludes that the petition is an unauthorized second or

successive petition, GRANTS respondent’s motion and DISMISSES the instant petition. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, petitioner was convicted by jury in the Superior Court of Santa

Clara County of child molestation and oral copulation with force. (Pet. at 3.) On November 13,

2002, the trial court sentenced petitioner to seventy five years to life. (Id.) In 2004, petitioner’s

direct appeal was affirmed by California Court of Appeal. (Id. at 4.) That same year, the

*E-FILED - 2/9/10*

Case 5:09-cv-03945-RMW Document 8 Filed 02/09/10 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

Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss as Second or Successive

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.09\Rodriguez945sos.wpd 2

California Supreme Court denied review. (Id.) Thereafter, the California Supreme Court also

denied petitioner’s state habeas petition. (Id.) Petitioner filed the instant petition on August 26,

2009.

DISCUSSION

A district court must dismiss claims presented in a second or successive habeas petition

challenging the same conviction and sentence unless the claims presented in the previous

petition were denied for failure to exhaust. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1); Babbitt v. Woodford,

177 F.3d 744, 745-46 (9th Cir. 1999). Additionally, a district court must dismiss any new claims

raised in a successive petition unless the petitioner received an order from the court of appeals

authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 

Here, the instant petition challenges the same conviction and sentence as petitioner’s

2005 habeas action, which was dismissed as untimely. See Rodriguez v. Evans, No. 05-4560 JF

(N.D. 2007). A dismissal on statute of limitations grounds constitutes a decision on the merits. 

See McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 2009). Petitioner has not presented an

order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this court to consider any new claims. 

Accordingly, this court must dismiss the instant petition in its entirety. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3)(A).

CONCLUSION 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as second or successive is GRANTED. The

instant habeas petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling if petitioner obtains the

necessary order. The clerk shall terminate any pending motions and close the file. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

2/8/10

Case 5:09-cv-03945-RMW Document 8 Filed 02/09/10 Page 2 of 2