Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05358/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05358-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Anthony Jones
Petitioner
Jeff Macumber
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

MARK ANTHONY JONES,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JEFF MACUMBER, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-5358 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(Docket No. 3)

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding pro se, has filed a

habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He was convicted and sentenced in

Sonoma County Superior Court for possession of drugs. He previously filed a habeas

petition in this Court challenging the same judgment, which petition was denied on its

merits. See Jones v. Adams, No. C 06-4162 VRW (PR). 

In the present petition, he contends that he is entitled to relief, i.e. a shorter

sentence or immediate release, under California law, specifically California Proposition

36. He also claims that the failure to re-sentence him under Proposition 36 violates his

federal constitutional rights. Petitioner has been informed on prior occasions, see, e.g.,

Jones v. Macumber, No. C 15-2610 JSW (N.D.Cal.), Jones v. Gipson, No. C. 13-3431

JSW (N.D. Cal.), that he must first obtain from the United States Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit an order authorizing this Court to consider a second or successive

petition from him. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). That is still the case. He has not

Case 4:15-cv-05358-JSW Document 4 Filed 12/29/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

indicated that he has received such authorization. 

Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing his claims in

a new petition after he has obtained the necessary authorization from the United States

Court of Appeals. 

Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED (dkt. 3). 

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires a district court to

rule on whether a Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability in the same order

in which the petition is decided. No reasonable jurist would find this Court's denial of

his claim on procedural grounds debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000). Consequently, no certificate of appealability is warranted in this case.

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 29, 2015 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-05358-JSW Document 4 Filed 12/29/15 Page 2 of 2