Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02431/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02431-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Knipp
Respondent
Jesus Lua
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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JESUS LUA, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

WILLIAM KNIPP, Warden, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:14-cv-2431-EFB P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Petitioner, a state prisoner without counsel, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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. 

 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 

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. 

Case 2:14-cv-02431-GEB-EFB Document 5 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 3
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

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

Sacramento County Superior Court on July 22, 2003, which resulted in a state prison sentence of 

60 years to life. ECF No. 1 at 1 (referencing Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 02F09709). 

The court has examined its records, and finds that petitioner challenged the same conviction in an 

earlier action. In Lua v. Martel, No. 2:08-cv-213 (E.D. Cal.), the court considered petitioner’s 

challenge to this 2003 conviction. See Lua, ECF. No. 14 (magistrate judge’s June 5, 2008 

findings and recommendations to dismiss petition as untimely); ECF No. 16 (district judge’s July 

15, 2008 order adopting findings and recommendations and dismissing petitioner’s application 

for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely). The earlier filed petition was dismissed as untimely, 

which constitutes a decision on the merits. See McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 

2009) (“[D]ismissal of a habeas petition as untimely constitutes a disposition on the merits and [ ] 

a further petition challenging the same conviction [is] ‘second or successive’ for purposes of 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b).”); Murray v. Greiner, 394 F.3d 78, 81 (2d Cir. 2005) (dismissal of habeas 

petition as time barred “constitutes an adjudication on the merits that renders future petitions 

under § 2254 challenging the same conviction ‘second or successive’ petitions under 

§ 2244(b).”). 

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 the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United 

States District Judge to this action. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-02431-GEB-EFB Document 5 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 3
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 

3

 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue 

in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (the district court must issue or deny a 

certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 

DATED: March 11, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02431-GEB-EFB Document 5 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 3