Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02107/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02107-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tyrone Daniel Johnson
Petitioner
K. Seibel
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 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TYRONE DANIEL JOHNSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

K. SEIBEL, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-2107-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 2:15-cv-02107-EFB Document 8 Filed 12/02/15 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 the July 15, 1999 judgment of conviction 

entered in the Sacramento County Superior Court for driving under the influence and being a 

convicted felon in possession of a firearm. ECF No. 1 at 1, 9, 109.2 The court has examined its 

records, and finds that petitioner challenged the same judgment of conviction in an earlier action. 

Specifically, in Johnson v. McGrath, No. 2:02-cv-1671-GEB-JFM (E.D. Cal.), the court 

considered petitioner’s challenge to the same judgment of conviction. See Johnson, ECF No. 91 

(magistrate judge’s February 8, 2008 findings and recommendations to deny petition on the 

merits); ECF No. 93 (district judge’s March 3, 2008 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: December 2, 2015. 

 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 2:15-cv-02107-EFB Document 8 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 2