Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06341/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06341-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MICHAEL MILLER,

Petitioner,

 vs.

LAURIE SMITH, Sheriff,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-06-6341 JSW (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

(Docket Nos. 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 13) 

This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pro se by Petitioner pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 regarding a 1970 conviction based on a plea of “nolo contendere” to

a rape charge. According to the petition, Petitioner filed a previous petition for a writ of

habeas corpus in this Court, challenging the same conviction and sentence (see 75-379

SC (PR)). United States District Court Judge Samuel Conti addressed the identical

claims raised here in Petitioner’s earlier petition and issued an order to show cause on

June 19, 1975, which is attached to one of Petitioner’s filings. See, Petition to Amend

Petition, Received December 26, 2006. 

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") was

signed into law on April 24, 1996. Under AEDPA, a district court must dismiss claims

presented in a second or successive habeas petition challenging the same conviction and

sentence raised in a previous petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1); Babbitt v. Woodford,

177 F.3d 744, 745-46 (9th Cir. 1999). Additionally, a district court must dismiss any

new claims raised in a successive petition unless the petitioner received an order from the

Case 3:06-cv-06341-JSW Document 17 Filed 04/16/07 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 2

court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b)(3)(A).

Here, the instant petition challenges the same conviction and sentence as the

previous petition filed in this Court in 1975. Petitioner has not presented an order from

the court of appeals authorizing the Court to consider these claims. Accordingly, the

Court must dismiss the instant petition in its entirety. Petitioner is free to seek such an

order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See, 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b)(3)(A).

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as

a second and successive petition. Petitioner’s motions are DENIED as moot. The Clerk

shall terminate all motions as decided by this order, close the file and enter judgment in

this matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 16, 2007

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06341-JSW Document 17 Filed 04/16/07 Page 2 of 2