Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01296/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01296-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. F. Salazar
Respondent
Freddie Fernando Wortham
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDDIE FERNANDO WORTHAM, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

J. F. SALAZAR, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-1296 JSW (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pro se by Petitioner pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutional validity of his state conviction. 

Petitioner's earlier habeas petition was transferred to this Court and filed under Case No.

C:03-cv-0184 JSW (PR). The petition was denied on the merits on February 11, 2005. 

Petitioner now files a separate habeas petition raising what appear to be different claims

regarding the same conviction as his earlier petition filed in this Court.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") was

signed into law on April 24, 1996. Under AEDPA, a district court must dismiss claims

presented in a second or successive habeas petition challenging the same conviction and

sentence that were raised in a previous petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1); Babbitt v.

Woodford, 177 F.3d 744, 745-46 (9th Cir. 1999). Additionally, a district court must

dismiss any new claims raised in a successive petition unless the petitioner received an

order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

Case 3:07-cv-01296-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/18/07 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

Here, the instant petition challenges the same conviction and sentence as the

previous petition decided by this Court in 2005. Petitioner has not presented an order

from the court of appeals authorizing the Court to consider these claims. Accordingly,

the Court must dismiss the instant petition in its entirety. Petitioner is free to seek such

an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See, 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b)(3)(A).

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as

a second and successive petition. The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment in

this matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 18, 2007

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01296-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/18/07 Page 2 of 2