Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02887/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02887-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clemente Perez Luna
Petitioner
United States of America
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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLEMENTE PEREZ LUNA,

Petitioner, No. C 07-2736 PJH/ 07-2887 PJH

 CR 90-0392 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

REQUEST FOR STATUS HEARING

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

Petitioner Clemente Perez Luna, a federal prisoner, proceeding pro se, filed two

motions, one on May 9, 2007, entitled a “motion to recall mandate,” and the other on

May 21, 2007, entitled a “motion to amend federal rule civil procedure 15(a)(b) relation

back, or via writ of habeas corpus section 2255.” Because neither motion constituted

Luna’s first § 2255 motion requiring the court to first inform Luna of any recharacterization of the motions, the court appropriately re-characterized the two motions

as motions to vacate Luna’s sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and corresponding civil

cases were opened by the Clerk. Subsequently, on June 25, 2007, the court dismissed

the cases as impermissible second and successive habeas petitions. 

Luna has now filed what appears to be a request for a status conference in case

no. C 07-2887 PJH (although he has provided the case number for his first § 2255

motion, C 01-2954 PJH). Because that case has been dismissed, the request is

DENIED. Pursuant to this court’s June 25, 2007 order, Luna is again advised that

because the court has already adjudicated one § 2255 motion filed by Luna, C 01-2954

Case 4:07-cv-02887-PJH Document 4 Filed 07/31/07 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 -

PJH, this court is without jurisdiction to consider his subsequent requests until he

obtains the requisite certification from the Ninth Circuit. See United States v. Allen, 157

F.3d 661, 644 (9th Cir. 1998) (a district court has no jurisdiction to reach the merits of

any successive claim unless petitioner receives certification from the court of appeals).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2007

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-02887-PJH Document 4 Filed 07/31/07 Page 2 of 2