Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00289/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00289-1/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

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

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS, Civil No. 14cv0289-GPC (RBB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

[Dkt. No. 25.]

vs.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

On February 6, 2014, Petitioner, Earnest Cassell Woods, a state prisoner proceeding pro

se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his

April 29, 1987, conviction and sentence in San Diego Superior Court Case No. CR 83908. (See

Pet. at 1.) On February 12, 2014, the Court dismissed the Petition for lack of jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), which provides that a petitioner cannot proceed with a

second or successive petition in the district court without permission from the Court of Appeals. 

The Court noted that Petitioner had already challenged his April 29, 1987, conviction in a

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in this Court, which was denied on the merits, and that

Petitioner admitted he has not received permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to

file a second or successive petition. (ECF No. 5 at 1-2.) The Court also noted that one of the

claims presented in the Petition apparently challenges a recent denial of parole, and notified

Petitioner that if he wishes to challenge the denial of parole, he must do so in a separate petition. 

See Rule 2(e), Rules foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“A petitioner who seeks relief from judgments of

I:\Chambers Curiel\Civil - Odd\HABEAS\14cv0289-reconsider.wpd, 42915 -1- 14cv0289

Case 3:14-cv-00289-GPC-RBB Document 26 Filed 04/29/15 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

more than one state court must file a separate petitions covering the judgment or judgments of

each court.”)

On March 20, 2014, the Court denied Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from

judgment and denied his motion for change of venue. (ECF No. 14.) The denial was without

prejudice to Petitioner presenting his challenge to the denial of parole to the Northern District

of California. (Id.) The Court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability. (Id.) 

Subsequently, Petitioner appealed theCourt’s order denying the Rule 60(b) motion. (ECF

No. 15.) On April 23, 2014, the Ninth Circuit denied his request for certificate of appealability,

(ECF No. 18), and denied his motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 19.) 

On March 17, 2015, the Court rejected, on discrepancy, Petitioner’s motion to proceed

in forma pauperis since the case is closed. (ECF No. 23.) On April 6, 2015, Petitioner filed the

instant motion for reconsideration of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 25.) 

Petitioner asks the Court to reconsider his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and also contends

that the Court erroneously placed an old case number to a new motion. 

First, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is moot since Petitioner paid his filing fee

in this case. To the extent he seeks to reopen his habeas petition, the case has been dismissed

for being successive. As to his allegation that the Court erroneously placed an old case number

to a new motion, Petitioner failed to place a case number on his document or indicated he was

filing a new case. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is without merit. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of motion to

proceed in forma pauperis. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 29, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

I:\Chambers Curiel\Civil - Odd\HABEAS\14cv0289-reconsider.wpd, 42915 -2- 14cv0289

Case 3:14-cv-00289-GPC-RBB Document 26 Filed 04/29/15 Page 2 of 2