Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00167/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00167-0/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

 1 “Doc.#” refers to the docket number of filings in the particular action.

TERMPSREF

SC

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Peter Andrew Hershfeldt, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0167-PHX-DGC (CRP)

ORDER

Petitioner Peter Andrew Hershfeldt, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex-CACF in Florence, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc.# 1.)1

 He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. The petition will

be dismissed as impermissibly second or successive. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

I. Procedural History.

In 1995, Petitioner was sentenced to 22.5 years imprisonment for sexual assault and

kidnapping. (Doc.# 1 at 1.) Petitioner filed a § 2254 petition in 1998. Hershfeldt v. Stewart,

CV 98-0940-PHX-PGR. The Court adopted a Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge and denied relief on May 4, 2001, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed,

Hershfeldt v. Herman, 60 Fed. Appx. 698 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court subsequently denied

Petitioner’s motion to amend or reinstate his habeas action (doc.# 34, 35), which the Ninth

Circuit also affirmed, Hershfeldt v. Goddard, 2006 WL 3077753 (9th Cir. 2006). On January

25, 2007, Petitioner commenced this action for habeas relief by filing a petition for writ of

habeas corpus. (Doc.# 1.) 

Case 2:07-cv-00167-DGC-CRP Document 3 Filed 02/27/07 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

II. Second or Successive Petition

“Before a second or successive [habeas] 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A). Because Petitioner has

not demonstrated that he has received authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file the current

petition, this Petition will be dismissed as impermissibly second or successive. 

IT IS ORDERED that the habeas petition is dismissed as impermissibly second or

successive and the Clerk of Court should enter judgment accordingly. (Doc.# 1.)

DATED this 26th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00167-DGC-CRP Document 3 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 2