Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00055/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00055-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Diaz
Petitioner
William Muniz
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN DIAZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM MUNIZ,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-0055 KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Petitioner has also consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. (ECF No. 5.) 

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 

the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner challenges his 1997 Sacramento County conviction for rape for which he was 

sentence to 37 years to life. 

Court records indicate that petitioner previously filed a habeas corpus petition in this court 

challenging his 1997 Sacramento County conviction for rape, CIV S 05-cv-0376 MCE CMK P. 

On March 17, 2008, CIV S 05-cv-0376 MCE CMK P was denied on the merits and judgment was 

entered. 

Case 2:16-cv-00055-KJN Document 6 Filed 01/22/16 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

Rule 9 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that before presenting 

a second or successive petition, the petitioner must obtain an order from the appropriate court of 

appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition as required by 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(b)(3) and (4). In the instant case, petitioner has not demonstrated that he has obtained an 

order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing him to proceed with this second or 

successive petition. For this reason, this action is dismissed. 

Petitioner has also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. Because the 

undersigned orders this action dismissed, the motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted;

2. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) is denied; and

3. This action is dismissed. 

Dated: January 22, 2016

Diaz55.dis

Case 2:16-cv-00055-KJN Document 6 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 2