Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00981/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00981-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phillip Lynn Capps
Petitioner
R. Ndoh
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PHILLIP LYNN CAPPS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

R. NDOH, Warden, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:16-cv-0981-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1

 The court has reviewed the petition as required by Rule 4 

of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, and finds that the petition is second or 

successive and must therefore be dismissed.2

 A petition is second or successive if it makes “claims contesting the same custody 

imposed by the same judgment of a state court” that the petitioner previously challenged, and on 

which the federal court issued a decision on the merits. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007); 

see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-86 (2000). Before filing a second or successive 

 1

 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to petitioner’s consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; 

see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

2

 Petitioner’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

Case 2:16-cv-00981-EFB Document 7 Filed 06/15/16 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

petition in a district court, a petitioner must obtain from the appellate court “an order authorizing 

the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Without an order from 

the appellate court, the district court is without jurisdiction to consider a second or successive 

petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. 147. 

 In the present action, petitioner challenges his 2002 judgment of conviction entered in the 

Trinity County Superior Court in case number 02F031. ECF No. 1 at 2.3 The court has examined 

its records, and finds that petitioner challenged the same judgment of conviction in an earlier 

action. Specifically, in Capps v. Guirbino, No. 2:06-cv-1431-MDS (E.D. Cal.), the court 

considered petitioner’s challenge to the same judgment of conviction. See Capps, ECF No. 31 

(December 16, 2008 order denying petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus). Since 

petitioner challenges the same judgment now that he previously challenged and which was 

adjudicated on the merits, the petition now pending is second or successive. 

Petitioner offers no evidence that the appellate court has authorized this court to consider 

a second or successive petition. Since petitioner has not demonstrated that the appellate court has 

authorized this court to consider a second or successive petition, this action must be dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction. See Burton, 549 U.S. 147; Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (per curiam). 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction 

and no certificate of appealability shall issue. 

DATED: June 14, 2016. 

 3

 For ease of reference, all references to page numbers in the petition are to those assigned 

via the court’s electronic filing system. 

Case 2:16-cv-00981-EFB Document 7 Filed 06/15/16 Page 2 of 2