Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00259/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00259-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Lizarraga
Respondent
Charles Williams
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHARLES WILLIAMS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

J. LIZARRAGA, Warden, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:16-cv-0259-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 The court has reviewed the petition as required by Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, and finds that the petition is second or successive and must 

therefore be dismissed. 

 A petition is second or successive if it makes “claims contesting the same custody 

imposed by the same judgment of a state court” that the petitioner previously challenged, and on 

which the federal court issued a decision on the merits. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007); 

see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-86 (2000). Before filing a second or successive 

petition in a district court, a petitioner must obtain from the appellate court “an order authorizing 

the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Without an order from 

 1

 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to petitioner’s consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; 

see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

Case 2:16-cv-00259-EFB Document 5 Filed 02/25/16 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

the appellate court, the district court is without jurisdiction to consider a second or successive 

petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. 147. 

 In the present action, petitioner challenges his March 2011 judgment of conviction entered 

in the Sacramento County Superior Court in case number 10F03247. ECF No. 1 at 1.2 The court 

has examined its records, and finds that petitioner challenged the same judgment of conviction in 

an earlier action. Specifically, in Williams v. Knipp, No. 2:13-cv-1468-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the 

court considered petitioner’s challenge to the same judgment of conviction. See Williams, ECF 

No. 13 (magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to deny petition on the merits); ECF 

No. 17 (district judge’s order adopting findings and recommendations and denying petitioner’s 

application for a writ of habeas corpus). Since petitioner challenges the same judgment now that 

he previously challenged and which was adjudicated on the merits, the petition now pending is 

second or successive. 

Petitioner offers no evidence that the appellate court has authorized this court to consider 

a second or successive petition. Since petitioner has not demonstrated that the appellate court has 

authorized this court to consider a second or successive petition, this action must be dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction. See Burton, 549 U.S. 147; Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (per curiam). 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

DATED: February 24, 2016. 

 2

 For ease of reference, all references to page numbers in the petition are to those assigned 

via the court’s electronic filing system. 

Case 2:16-cv-00259-EFB Document 5 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 2