Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-05528/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-05528-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Josie Gastelo
Respondent
Hiep Huy Nguyen
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISON

HIEP HUY NGUYEN,

Petitioner,

v.

JOSIE GASTELO,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-5528-NJV (PR) 

ORDER FOR PETITIONER 

TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a 1998 conviction in Santa Clara County, so venue is 

proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitioner has paid the filing fee and has consented to the 

jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge.

However, court records indicate that petitioner already filed a habeas petition in this court 

challenging the same conviction. See Nguyen v. Veale, Case No. 06-cv-4198-MJJ. Petitioner’s 

case was dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations. This appears to be a 

successive petition. 

 “A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 

2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). 

This is the case unless,

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of 

constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by 

the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or

(B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been 

discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and

(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in 

light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by 

Case 1:16-cv-05528-NJV Document 8 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no 

reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the 

underlying offense.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).

“Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district 

court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the 

district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). It does not appear that 

petitioner has received authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file this petition, therefore he will 

be ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed. 

CONCLUSION

1. Petitioner must show cause within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this 

order why this case should not be dismissed as successive. Failure to file a response will result in 

this case being dismissed.

2. Petitioner must keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with 

the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for 

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 

104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2016

________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:16-cv-05528-NJV Document 8 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 2