Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01444/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01444-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brandon Favor
Petitioner
Pat L. Vazquez
Respondent

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON FAVOR, aka BRANDON 

FAVOR-EL,

Petitioner,

v.

PAT L. VAZQUEZ, Warden, California 

Correctional Institution, 

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01444-SKO HC

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 

PETITIONER’S MOTION: “RIGHT TO 

TESTIFY AND RAQUEL HARPER’S 

DIRECT APPEAL”

(Doc.10)

Petitioner Brandon Favor is a state prisoner proceeding pro se, whose a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was dismissed as a second or successive petition on 

October 25, 2016.

1

 On October 28, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion entitled, “Petitioner’s Right to 

Testify and Raquel Harper’s Direct Appeal.” Doc. 10. Although the convoluted and confusing 

language of the motion is difficult to understand, the motion appears to repeat Petitioner’s 

allegations that Petitioner’s rights were violated when he was convicted of the charges for which he 

was sentenced to his current term of imprisonment. 

As discussed in detail in the order dismissing the above-captioned petition, this Court cannot 

address a second or successive petition for writ of habeas corpus unless Petitioner has obtained leave 

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 

Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

Case 1:16-cv-01444-SKO Document 12 Filed 11/02/16 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

from the circuit court. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-57 (1996). In the absence of an order 

from the circuit court, a district court lacks jurisdiction over the petition and must dismiss the second 

or successive petition. Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997). Petitioner failed 

to secure such approval before filing the above-captioned petition.

The Court’s having previously dismissed the petition, the motion is hereby DENIED as 

moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01444-SKO Document 12 Filed 11/02/16 Page 2 of 2