Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120814_0011112.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-11 00:43:11
Document Index: 599239689

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2244', '§ 2244', '§ 2254', '§ 2244', '§ 2244', '§ 3006', '§ 2254']

| Johnny andrew Moore v. Ron Rackley
Johnny andrew Moore v. Ron Rackley
JOHNNY ANDREW MOORE, PETITIONER,v.RON RACKLEY,*FN1 RESPONDENTS.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss in which respondents argue, among other things, that this matter should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 because the habeas petition before the court, currently the first amended petition filed April 24, 2012, is "successive."
Court records for case number 2:07-cv-1365 JAM EFB P reveal that petitioner previously filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court attacking the convictions and sentences challenged in this case. The previous petition was filed on July 11, 2007, and was dismissed as time-barred on March 26, 2009. Petitioner did not appeal.
Before petitioner can proceed with the instant successive petition, he must obtain authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3); see 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 [28 U.S.C.§ 2244(b)])." It does not appear petitioner has obtained the required authorization. Therefore, petitioner's habeas petition must be dismissed without prejudice to its refiling upon obtaining the required authorization. In light of the foregoing, the court does not reach the argument presented by respondents that claims presented in this action are also time-barred.
The court notes that on July 17, 2012, petitioner filed a second amended habeas petition without obtaining leave to do so. Therefore, the court does not consider the petition. However, the court notes that the claims in the second amended petition challenge the same convictions and sentences challenged in the first amended petition. Therefore, the second amended petition is also "successive" under 28 U.S.C. § 2244.
Petitioner requests the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's August 8, 2012 request for the appointment of counsel is denied.
1. Respondent's July 3, 2012 motion to dismiss be granted;