Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03130/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03130-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

16cv3130 LAB (BLM)

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

FLOYD ANTHONY RODGERS,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16cv3130 LAB (BLM)

ORDER: (1) CONSTRUING 

PETITION AS ONE FILED 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and 

(2) DISMISSING PETITION AS 

SUCCESSIVE PURUSANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER 

PROVISION

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceed in pro se, has submitted a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and 

has not moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court does not rule on Petitioner’s in

forma pauperis status because this case is summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) as indicated below. 

Although Petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, he is a state 

prisoner attacking the validity of a state court conviction and sentence imposed by the 

state of California. Therefore, Petitioner may not proceed under section 2241, but may 

only proceed with a habeas action in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. White v. 

Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that section 2254 is the proper 

jurisdictional basis for a habeas petition brought by an individual “in custody pursuant to 

Case 3:16-cv-03130-LAB-BLM Document 2 Filed 01/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16cv3130 LAB (BLM)

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

a state court judgment”). Section 2254 is properly understood as “in effect 

implement[ing] the general grant of habeas corpus authority found in § 2241 as long as 

the person is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, and not in state custody 

for some other reason, such as pre-conviction custody, custody awaiting extradition, or 

other forms of custody that are possible without a conviction.” [citations omitted.] Id. at 

1006 (quoting Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 633 (7th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in 

original). Accordingly, the Court CONSTRUES the Petition as one filed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254.1

PETITION BARRED BY GATEKEEPER PROVISION

The instant Petition is not the first Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Petitioner 

has submitted to this Court challenging his November 22, 2002 conviction in San Diego 

Superior Court case No. SCS 163874. On June 6, 2006, Petitioner filed in this Court a 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in case No. 06cv1348 L (POR). In that petition, 

Petitioner challenged his conviction in San Diego Superior Court case No. SCS 163874

as well. On March 8, 2007, this Court granted a motion to dismiss on the grounds that 

the petition was untimely. (See Order filed March 8, 2007 in case No. 06cv1348 L

(POR) [Doc. No. 18].) Petitioner did not appeal that determination. 

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); McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that 

dismissal for failure to comply with one-year statute of limitations renders subsequent 

petitions challenging the same conviction or sentence “second or successive” under 

 

1 From the Petition, it appears Petitioner is a mentally disordered offender housed at Atascadero State 

Hospital, and may be under civil commitment. A petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 would be the 

appropriate method by which to challenge his civil commitment, but Petitioner challenges his criminal 

sentence, not his civil commitment, in his Petition. 

Case 3:16-cv-03130-LAB-BLM Document 2 Filed 01/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16cv3130 LAB (BLM)

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

§ 2244(b)). 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. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a blank Application 

to File Second or Successive Petition together with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: January 11, 2017

_________________________________

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-03130-LAB-BLM Document 2 Filed 01/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3