Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03371/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03371-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard A. Barker
Petitioner
John Marshall
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

1

 The Supreme Court is the only entity that can "make" a new rule retroactive for

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A), which governs the circumstances under which

such a new rule can be the basis for avoiding dismissal as successive. Tyler v. Cain,

533 U.S. 656, 663 (2001). 

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD A. BARKER, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

JOHN MARSHALL, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-3371 PJH (PR)

GRANT OF LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; ORDER OF

DISMISSAL

(Docs 3, 4, 5 & 6)

Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Men’s Colony,

has filed a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

He contends that under the recent case of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59

(2004), his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were violated at his 1975 trial. The

Ninth Circuit has held that Crawford applies retroactively, Bockting v. Bayer, 399 F.3d

1010, 1021(9th Cir.), amended, 408 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2005), but the United States

Supreme Court has not.1

A second or successive petition may not be filed in this court unless petitioner

first obtains from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit an order

authorizing this court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner

has not received such an order, but does have a request for one pending before the

Ninth Circuit. Barker v. Marshall, No. 05-75114 (filed Sept. 1, 2005). The statute
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

provides that a petitioner who wishes to file a second or successive application must

obtain a court of appeals order “[b]efore” filing in district court, not afterwards. See 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). This petitioner has not done.

CONCLUSION 

1. Petitioner’s most recent request to proceed in forma pauperis (doc 5) is

GRANTED. His prior requests (docs 3 & 4) are DENIED as moot. Petitioner has

moved for leave to file an amended petition. The proposed petition does not remedy

the deficiency identified above, so amending would be futile. The motion (doc 6) is

DENIED.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a new case if petitioner

obtains the necessary order. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 26 , 2005.

 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.05\BARKER114.DSM