IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

LEMUEL FRED HENTZ, 

Civil No. 6:13-cv-00781-BR 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JEFF PREMO, 

Respondent. 

LEMUEL FRED HENTZ 

SID #6750414 

Two Rivers Correctional Institution 

82911 Beach Access Road 

Umatilla, OR 97882-9419 

Petitioner Pro Se 

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM 

Attorney General 

KRISTEN E. BOYD 

Assistant Attorney General 

Department of Justice 

1162 Court Street NE 

Salem, OR 97301-4096 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER -

OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:13-cv-00781-BR Document 38 Filed 04/02/14 Page 1 of 5
BROWN, Judge. 

Petitioner, an inmate at the Two Rivers Correctional 

Institution, brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

BACKGROUND 

On June 12, 1996, a Judgment of Conviction and Sentence was 

entered against Petitioner in Multnomah County Circuit Court after 

a jury found Petitioner guilty of charges of Unlawful Sexual 

Penetration in the First Degree (two counts) and Sexual Abuse in 

the First Degree (four counts). The trial judge sentenced 

Petitioner to a total of 394 months of imprisonment. 

Petitioner filed a direct appeal. The Oregon Court of 

Appeals affirmed without opinion, and the Oregon Supreme Court 

denied review. State v. Hentz, 152 Or. App. 403, 960 P.2d 394, 

rev. denied, 327 Or. 2, 961 P.2d 216 (1998). 

Petitioner then sought state post-conviction relief ("PCR"). 

The PCR trial court denied relief. On appeal, the Oregon Court of 

Appeals affirmed without opinion and the Oregon Supreme Court 

denied review. Hentz v. Lampert, 176 Or. App. 648, 32 P.3d 973 

(2001), rev. denied, 333 Or. 567, 42 P.3d 1245 (2002). 

On March 8, 2002, Petitioner filed a second direct appeal. 

He subsequently moved to dismiss the second direct appeal, which 

the Oregon Court of Appeals granted on March 29, 2002. 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER -

Case 6:13-cv-00781-BR Document 38 Filed 04/02/14 Page 2 of 5
On March 25, 2002, Petitioner filed a third direct appeal. 

Attached to the notice of appeal was a Multnomah County Circuit 

court's order denying Petitioner's Motion for Arrest of Judgment. 

The Oregon Court of Appeals dismissed the third direct appeal and 

issued an appellate judgment on March 13, 2003. 

On September 3, 2004, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus in this Court in Hentz v. Hill, Case No. 6:04-cv01253-AA. On August 22, 2005, District Judge Ann L. Aiken denied 

the Petition on the grounds that it was time-barred. Petitioner 

appealed, but on May 30, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

denied Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability. 

On April 23, 2010, Petitioner filed a second PCR petition in 

state court. The PCR trial court dismissed the second PCR 

petition as successive and time-barred. The Oregon Court of 

Appeals summarily affirmed the PCR trial court, and the Oregon 

Supreme Court denied review on April 25, 2013. 

On May 8, 2013, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus in this action. Respondent argues the Petition must 

be dismissed because Petitioner failed to obtain authorization 

from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before filing this second 

or successive Petition. 1 

1 In his Answer to the Petition, Respondent also contends the 

Petition is time-barred and that Petitioner procedurally defaulted 

the claims alleged therein. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction 

over the Petition, Respondent's additional affirmative defenses are 

3 - OPINION AND ORDER -

Case 6:13-cv-00781-BR Document 38 Filed 04/02/14 Page 3 of 5
DISCUSSION 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b) (3) (A), before a second habeas 

petition raising new grounds may be 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." In the absence of an order authorizing a successive 

petition, this Court is without jurisdiction to review such a 

petition on the merits. 

(9th Cir. 2001). 

Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 

Petitioner provides no proof he obtained an order from the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this Court to consider 

his successive habeas corpus application. Instead, Petitioner 

argues he is not required to obtain permission from the Ninth 

Circuit because the prior habeas action before Judge Aiken was 

"invalid, because the Attorney General's Office committed fraud 

upon the court." Petitioner's argument is without merit. 

Dismissal of a prior petition on timeliness grounds "renders 

subsequent petitions second or successive for purposes of [ § 

2244(b)(3)(A)]." McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 

2009). Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus must 

be denied. 

not addressed. 

4 - OPINION AND ORDER -

Case 6:13-cv-00781-BR Document 38 Filed 04/02/14 Page 4 of 5
CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, the Court DENIES the Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability as 

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right. se·e 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c) (2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this ~~day of April, 2014. 

ANNA J. BROWN 

United States District Judge 

5 - OPINION AND ORDER -

Case 6:13-cv-00781-BR Document 38 Filed 04/02/14 Page 5 of 5