Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02747/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02747-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joe A. Lizarrago
Defendant
Samuel Ortega
Plaintiff

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAMUEL ORTEGA, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JOE A. LIZARRAGO, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 16-cv-02747-PJH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

Re: Dkt. No. 5 

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a May 2, 2001, conviction from the 

Santa Clara County Superior Court. However, court records indicate that petitioner 

already filed a habeas petition in this court challenging the same conviction. See Ortega 

v. R.J. Subia, Case No. 07-cv-4541-PJH. Petitioner’s case was dismissed with prejudice 

as barred by the statute of limitations. In this case, the court ordered petitioner to show 

cause why this case should not be dismissed as successive. Petitioner has not filed a 

response, but he did file a motion for a certificate of appealability. 

 “A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under 

section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed . . .” 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). This is the case unless, 

 (A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new 

rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on 

collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously 

unavailable; or 

 (B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have 

been discovered previously through the exercise of due 

diligence; and 

 (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed 

in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to 

Case 4:16-cv-02747-PJH Document 6 Filed 08/02/16 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

28 

dis

au

pe

Cir

Nin

he

for

48

Da

\\can

U.S.C. § 2

“Before

strict court, 

thorizing th

Petition

tition. The 

rcuit he ma

nth Circuit. 

This ca

re debatab

r a certificat

4-85 (2000

IT IS S

ated: Augus

ndoak.cand.circ9

establish 

constitution

found the a

2244(b)(2). 

e a second 

the applica

he district co

ner has fail

case is the

y refile this 

ase is DISM

le, a certific

te of appea

) (standard

SO ORDER

st 2, 2016 

9.dcn\data\users

by clear a

nal error, 

applicant gu

or success

ant shall mo

ourt to cons

ed to demo

erefore dism

case. He 

MISSED. B

cate of appe

alability (Doc

d for COA). 

RED. 

\PJHALL\_psp\2

2

and convin

no reason

uilty of the u

sive applica

ove in the a

sider the ap

onstrate the

missed. If p

must file th

CONCLU

Because rea

ealability (“

cket No. 5)

2016\2016_02747

ncing evide

nable factf

underlying 

ation permit

appropriate 

pplication.” 

e he receive

petitioner ob

he motion fo

USION 

asonable ju

“COA”) is D

). See Slac

PH

Un

7_Ortega_v_Liza

ence that, 

finder wou

offense. 

tted by this 

court of ap

 28 U.S.C. 

ed authoriz

btains perm

or a succes

urists would

DENIED as 

ck v. McDan

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

arrago_(PSP)\16

but for 

uld have 

section is f

ppeals for a

§ 2244(b)(

ation to file

mission from

ssive petitio

d not find th

is petitione

niel, 529 U.

HAMILTON

s District Ju

6-cv-02747-PJHfiled in the 

n order 

(3)(A). 

e a new 

m the Ninth 

on with the 

e result 

er’s motion 

.S. 473, 

N

udge 

-dis.docx 

Case 4:16-cv-02747-PJH Document 6 Filed 08/02/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

SA

JO

Dis

sai

dep

rec

Sam

Mu

P.O

Ion

Da

AMUEL OR

v. 

OE A. LIZA

I, the un

strict Court, 

That on

d copy(ies) i

positing said

ceptacle loca

muel Ortega

ule Creek Sta

O. Box 4090

ne, CA 9564

ated: August 

RTEGA, 

Plaintiff, 

ARRAGO, 

Defendant.

ndersigned, 

Northern Di

n August 2, 2

in a postage 

d envelope in

ated in the Cl

a ID: T-2474

ate Prison 

060

0 

2, 2016 

UNITED

NORTHER

.

hereby certi

istrict of Cal

2016, I SERV

paid envelo

n the U.S. M

lerk's office.

40 

3

D STATES D

RN DISTRIC

fy that I am 

lifornia. 

VED a true 

ope addressed

Mail, or by pla

.

 S

Cl

By

D

H

DISTRICT C

CT OF CALI

Case No. 1

CERTIFIC

an employe

and correct c

d to the pers

acing said co

Susan Y. Soo

lerk, United

y:_________

Doug Merry, 

Honorable PH

COURT 

IFORNIA 

16-cv-02747

CATE OF S

ee in the Offi

copy(ies) of

son(s) herein

opy(ies) into

ong 

d States Distr

___________

Deputy Cler

HYLLIS J. H

7-PJH 

SERVICE 

ice of the Cl

f the attached

nafter listed, 

o an inter-off

rict Court 

_______ 

rk to the 

HAMILTON

erk, U.S. 

d, by placing

by 

ffice delivery

N

g

y

Case 4:16-cv-02747-PJH Document 6 Filed 08/02/16 Page 3 of 3