Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02412/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02412-0/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 

19cv2412-MMA (KSC) 

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 

CHARLES EDWARD SHIPMAN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al., 

Respondents. 

 Case No.: 19cv2412-MMA (KSC) 

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 a Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2012 conviction in San 

Diego County Superior Court case number SCN239448. Doc. No. 1 at 1. 

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 2012 conviction in San Diego Superior Court 

regarding case number SCN239448. On July 1, 2015, Petitioner filed in this Court a 

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging that same conviction. See Pet. filed 

7/1/15 [Doc. No. 1] in S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 15cv1451-BAS (BGS). On May 9, 2016, 

this Court denied the petition on the merits of the claims presented. See Order filed 

5/9/16 [Doc. No. 13] in S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 15cv1451-BAS (BGS). 

Case 3:19-cv-02412-MMA-KSC Document 2 Filed 12/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

19cv2412-MMA (KSC) 

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

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); 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). Although Petitioner relies on new caselaw in support of his claims, see

Doc. No. 1 at 14-19, which is a listed basis for obtaining permission to file a successive 

petition, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)), he must first obtain authorization from the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a petition in this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) 

(“Before a second or successive application permitted by this section 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.”) 

Here, Petitioner has checked the “no” box in the section of the petition form where 

it asks whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted him leave to file a 

successive petition. Doc. No. 1 at 5. 

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. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank Application 

for Leave to File a Second or Successive Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with 

a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 18, 2019 _____________________________

Hon. Michael M. Anello 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-02412-MMA-KSC Document 2 Filed 12/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2