Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00745/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00745-0/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 of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Olecik745dis 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS DAVID OLECIK,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-0745 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Petitioner filed an

earlier habeas action with this Court, in C 98-21029 JF (PR), challenging the same

conviction and sentence raised in the instant petition. The Court denied Petitioner’s

earlier petition on the merits on May 25, 2000. The Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s

appeal in December 2000. Because the instant petition challenges the same conviction

and sentence as Petitioner’s earlier habeas action, the Court will DISMISS the instant

petition without prejudice as a second or successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b). 

\\\

\\\

**Original filed 8/31/06**

Case 5:06-cv-00745-JF Document 4 Filed 08/31/06 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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Olecik745dis 2

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. See

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), (3).

Here, Petitioner raises two new claims regarding the statute of limitations and a

violation of his right to confrontation pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36

(2004). See Petition at 8. The instant petition challenges the same conviction and

sentence as the earlier petition in case no. C 98-21029 JF (PR), this earlier habeas petition

was denied on the merits, and Petitioner has not presented an order from the 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

The instant petition is DISMISSED without prejudice as a second and successive

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). The Clerk shall terminate any pending

motions and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

8/31/06

Case 5:06-cv-00745-JF Document 4 Filed 08/31/06 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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Olecik745dis 3

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Dennis David Olecik

H-53149

CSP - SATF V

P.O. Box 5428

Corcoran, CA 93212

Case 5:06-cv-00745-JF Document 4 Filed 08/31/06 Page 3 of 3