Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01164/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01164-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Paramo
Respondent
Gerald L. Tucker
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD L. TUCKER,

Petitioner,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01164-AWI-SAB-HC

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 23)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se whose petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was dismissed on February 2, 2016. (ECF No. 19). This Court 

previously denied petitions for writ of habeas corpus arising from both the 1998 conviction for 

failure to register and the 2002 conviction for murder, and Petitioner failed to obtain prior leave 

from the Ninth Circuit to file a successive petition. Thus, applicable law required the Court to 

dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). 

On May 2, 2016, Petitioner submitted a document, which the Court construed as a motion 

for reconsideration. (ECF No. 21). On May 19, 2016, the Court denied the motion for 

reconsideration. (ECF No. 22). On August 22, 2016, the Court received the instant motion, 

which is labeled “Motion as of Double Jeopardy.” (ECF No. 23). The Court construes this as a 

second motion for reconsideration. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.2d 920, 925 

(9th Cir. 2003) (courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings and motions liberally).

Case 1:15-cv-01164-AWI-SAB Document 24 Filed 10/14/16 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

As set forth in detail in the findings and recommendation (ECF No. 16) and the order 

dismissing the petition (ECF No. 19), this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s

petition for writ of habeas corpus. Since Petitioner has already filed petitions for writ of habeas 

corpus regarding his 1998 and 2002 convictions, he cannot file another petition in this Court 

regarding the same convictions without first obtaining permission from the United States Court 

of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. Although it appears that Petitioner subsequently has submitted to 

the Ninth Circuit an application for permission to file a second or successive habeas corpus 

petition, (ECF No. 23 at 4), there is no indication that the application has been granted. 

Regardless, Petitioner had not obtained prior authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file the 

petition in the instant case. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s second motion for reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of 

his petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01164-AWI-SAB Document 24 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 2