Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00369/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00369-1/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

Case No. 15-CV-00369-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DANNY TORRES,

Petitioner,

v.

GARY SWARTHOUT,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-CV-00369-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 9

On January 27, 2015, Petitioner Danny Torres (“Petitioner”), represented by counsel, filed 

a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his detention at the California State Prison, 

Solano, in Vacaville, California. ECF No. 1 (“Petition”). On March 29, 2016, the Court ordered 

Respondent to show cause why the Petition should not granted. ECF No. 8. 

On May 31, 2016, Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss, which contends that the 

Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Petition “on the grounds that the [P]etition is a second or 

successive [habeas corpus] petition.” ECF No. 9 at 1; see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (“Before a 

second or successive [habeas corpus] application . . . is filed in the district court, the applicant 

shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider 

the application.”); Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (per curiam) (“Burton neither 

Case 5:15-cv-00369-LHK Document 13 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 15-CV-00369-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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

Northern District of California

sought nor received authorization from the Court of Appeals before filing his 2002 petition, a 

‘second or successive’ petition challenging his custody, and so the District Court was without 

jurisdiction to entertain it.”).

On June 15, 2016, Petitioner responded to Respondent’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 12. 

In Petitioner’s response, Petitioner agrees with Respondent that his Petition is a second or 

successive petition and that “he must [therefore] seek permission from the United States Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive petition before proceeding in this matter.” Id. at 1. 

Accordingly, Petitioner requests that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Respondent has 

not filed a reply to Petitioner’s response, and the time for filing a reply has now passed. 

In light of the parties’ positions, the Court hereby GRANTS without prejudice 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss. The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00369-LHK Document 13 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 2