Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01385/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01385-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert W. Fox
Respondent
Jay Shah
Petitioner

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAY SHAH, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ROBERT W. FOX, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 20-cv-01385-RS 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 Petitioner Jay Shah has filed a habeas petition challenging the same state convictions he 

challenged in a prior (and now closed) habeas action, Shah v. Fox, No. 17-cv-06737-RS (N.D. 

Cal. filed Nov. 22, 2017). The instant petition will be dismissed as second or successive to the 

prior petition. If petitioner wishes to file a successive habeas petition, he must first obtain 

permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

II. BACKGROUND 

 Shah’s prior petition was denied on the merits in December 2018, and a certificate of 

appealability was not issued by either the district court or the Ninth Circuit. See id., Dkt. Nos. 22, 

25. 

III. DISCUSSION 

This petition will be dismissed as second or successive. As noted, in 2017 Shah filed a 

petition regarding the same convictions at issue in the instant action, which was denied on the 

Case 3:20-cv-01385-RS Document 5 Filed 03/10/20 Page 1 of 2
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

CASE NO. 20-cv-01385-RS

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

merits. Therefore, a “further petition challenging the same conviction would be ‘second or 

successive’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).” McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th 

Cir. 2009). 

In order to file a second or successive petition, Shah must obtain an order from the Court 

of Appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 

Shah has not shown that he has received such authorization. Accordingly, the instant petition 

must be dismissed as second or successive, the filing of which has not been authorized by the 

Court of Appeals. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 The instant petition is DISMISSED as second or successive, the filing of which has not 

been authorized by the Court of Appeals. If petitioner wishes to file a second or successive habeas 

petition, he first must obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

 A certificate of appealability will not issue. Shah has not shown “that jurists of reason 

would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 

procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Clerk shall enter judgment 

in favor of respondent and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 10, 2020 

______________________________________ 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

United States District Judge 

________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-01385-RS Document 5 Filed 03/10/20 Page 2 of 2