Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01508/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01508-0/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

19cv1508 CAB (NLS)

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

ANTHONY ARTHUR BUSH,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT NEUSCHMID, Warden,

Defendant.

Case No. 19cv1508 CAB (NLS)

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF 

SUCCESSIVE PETITION 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER 

PROVISION

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

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 September 1995 conviction in San Diego 

County Superior Court case number SCD108063. On January 25, 2001, Petitioner filed 

in a Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in case No. 01cv0142 BEN (NLS). In 

that petition, Petitioner challenged his September 1995 conviction as well. On March 3, 

2009, this Court denied the petition on the merits. (See Order filed March 3, 2009 in case 

No. 01cv0142 BEN (NLS) (ECF No. 90).) Petitioner appealed that determination. On 

February 16, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s 

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01508-CAB-NLS Document 2 Filed 09/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv1508 CAB (NLS)

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

decision denying habeas relief. (See Order in Bush v. Pliler, No. 09-55465 (9th Cir. Feb. 

16, 2011) (ECF No. 101).) 

Petitioner is now seeking to challenge the sentence imposed as a result the 

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); see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 

(2007) (a petition is successive where it challenges “the same custody imposed by the 

same judgment of a state court” as a prior petition). A successive application is 

permissible “only if it rests on a new rule of constitutional law, facts that were previously 

unavailable, or facts that would be sufficient to show constitutional error in the 

petitioner's conviction.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). “Even if a petitioner can demonstrate 

that he qualifies for one of these exceptions, he must seek authorization from the court of 

appeals before filing his new petition with the district court.” Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 

886, 888 (9th Cir.2008). 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. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach a blank 

Ninth Circuit Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01508-CAB-NLS Document 2 Filed 09/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2