Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00007/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00007-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\11cv0007 Successive.wpd, 11111 -1- 11cv0007

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE CARLOS LOPEZ, Civil No. 11-0007 DMS (BLM)

Petitioner,

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF

SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)

GATEKEEPER PROVISION

vs.

D. ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner, Jose Carlos Lopez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a request for appointment

of counsel. The Court does not rule on Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel because

this case is summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) as indicated below. 

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 1999 conviction in San Diego Superior Court case No.

SF 133532. On December 21, 2001, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus in case No. 01cv2350. In that petition, Petitioner challenged his conviction in San Diego

Superior Court case No. SF 133532 as well. On March 12, 2003, this Court denied the petition

on the merits. (See Order filed March 12, 2003 in case No. 01cv2350 IEG (LAB) [Doc. No.

18].) On March 11, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s request for

Case 3:11-cv-00007-DMS-BLM Document 3 Filed 01/11/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\11cv0007 Successive.wpd, 11111 -2- 11cv0007

authorization to file a second or successive petition in the district court. (See Order in Lopez v.

Horel, No. 08-75168 (9th Cir. Mar. 11, 2009).) 

Petitioner is now seeking to challenge the same 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). Here, the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Petitioner leave to file a successive petition.

CONCLUSION

Because Petitioner has not 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 11, 2011

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00007-DMS-BLM Document 3 Filed 01/11/11 Page 2 of 2