Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02298/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02298-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ron Davis
Respondent
Anthony C. Huckabee
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY C. HUCKABEE,

Petitioner,

v.

RON DAVIS, Warden,

Respondents.

No. 2:14-cv-2298 KJN P

ORDER

On October 28, 2014, the petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed without 

prejudice because he previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus that was denied on the 

merits, which required that petitioner obtain an order from the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit authorizing this court to consider petitioner’s successive petition. (ECF No. 8 at 

1-2.) Petitioner consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c). 

On March 16, 2015, petitioner filed a document styled, “Continuation of Petition after 

Denial of Successive by 9th Cir. Court.” (ECF No. 10.) Petitioner states that the Ninth Circuit 

denied his request for a successive petition on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in 

connection with the underlying plea bargain on February 27, 2015. Petitioner seeks to continue 

his original petition without the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and to pursue his other 

two original issues.

Case 2:14-cv-02298-JAM-KJN Document 11 Filed 03/24/15 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

However, as stated in this court’s prior order, petitioner must obtain authorization from 

the Ninth Circuit to allow this court to consider any of the claims contained in the original 

petition. Because petitioner already sought habeas relief and such claims were resolved on the 

merits on August 10, 2006, in Huckabee v. Adams, Case No. 2:01-cv-1795 DFL CMK (E.D. 

Cal.), petitioner cannot proceed on a second petition for writ of habeas corpus until the Ninth 

Circuit grants him such authorization. Absent such authorization, the Eastern District cannot 

consider any petition for writ of habeas corpus filed after August 10, 2006, no matter what claims 

are contained therein.

This action was closed on October 28, 2014. No further filings shall be made in this 

terminated action, and no orders will issue in response to future filings. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s March 16, 

2015 filing (ECF No. 10) is placed in the court file and disregarded. 

Dated: March 23, 2015

/huck2298.suc2

Case 2:14-cv-02298-JAM-KJN Document 11 Filed 03/24/15 Page 2 of 2