Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00498/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00498-2/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

James Leon Walker, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-00498-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On March 7, 2013, Petitioner James Leon Walker, who is confined in the Arizona 

State Prison Complex in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2001 convictions for attempted child 

molestation and attempted sexual conduct with a minor, and the trial court’s imposition 

of an aggravated 15-year term of imprisonment to be followed by lifetime probation. The 

Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction with leave to amend on June 10, 

2013, because Petitioner had failed to allege that he was in custody in violation of the 

Constitution or the law or treaties of the United States. Doc. 8. Petitioner filed an 

amended petition on June 13, 2013. Doc. 9. On July 23, 2013, the Court dismissed the 

amended petition without prejudice and with leave to amend because it found that the 

petition still lacked any statement that Petitioner is in custody in violation of the 

Constitution or the law or treaties of the United States. Doc. 10. 

 Petitioner filed a second amended petition on July 30, 2013. Doc. 11. United 

States Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) 

recommending that the second amended petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

Case 2:13-cv-00498-DGC Document 25 Filed 02/04/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

Doc. 23. Petitioner filed objections to the R&R on January 21, 2014. Doc. 24. The 

Court will accept the R&R and dismiss the second amended petition, but it will do so 

without prejudice. 

I. Background. 

 Following his 2001 conviction in state court, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus on December 8, 2004. This Court dismissed the petition as untimely on 

March 15, 2006. See Doc. 18 in CIV-04-2817-PHX-DGC (DKD). On November 29, 

2006, Petitioner filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he challenged 

the same convictions and sentences. On February 22, 2007, this Court dismissed the 

petition without prejudice in order to allow Petitioner to seek leave from the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals for certification authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 

See Doc. 11 in CIV-06-2863-PHX-DGC (DKD). The court of appeals denied 

Petitioner’s application for authorization to file a second petition. Doc. 22 at 152. This 

case involves Petitioner’s third petition challenging the 2001 convictions and sentences. 

Petitioner has not obtained certification from the court of appeals to file a successive 

petition. 

II. Discussion. 

 Before filing a second or successive petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal 

district court challenging the same conviction, a state prisoner must move in the court of 

appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Respondent argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction to 

consider the petition because Petitioner has not obtained an order from the court of 

appeals authorizing this Court to consider the petition. Doc. 22 at 4. Petitioner appears 

to argue that the Court should nevertheless consider his petition because it granted him 

two opportunities to amend his petition and because Respondent’s assertion that this 

Court lacks jurisdiction is untimely. Doc. 24 at 2. Petitioner has cited no authority for 

his arguments and has not argued that his petition is not successive. The Court agrees 

with Respondent that it lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s successive petition at 

Case 2:13-cv-00498-DGC Document 25 Filed 02/04/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

this time. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (holding where petitioner did 

not receive authorization from the court of appeals to file second or successive petition, 

“the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain [the petition.]”). The Court, 

however, will dismiss the case without prejudice so that Petitioner can seek certification 

from the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive section 2254 petition. 

 The Court will direct the Clerk of Court to provide Petitioner with a form 

recommended by the Ninth Circuit for filing an Application for Leave to File Second or 

Successive Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

 IT IS ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition (Doc. 11) and this action are 

dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court must enter 

judgment accordingly. 

2. The Clerk of Court must provide Petitioner with a copy of the form 

recommended by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for filing an 

Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition Under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 or Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

 Dated this 4th day of February, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00498-DGC Document 25 Filed 02/04/14 Page 3 of 3