Case Name: Ras Adisa Gamba OLUWA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bill LOCKYER, Attorney General; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-19
Citations: 235 F. App'x 437
Docket Number: No. 05-56230
Parties: Ras Adisa Gamba OLUWA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bill LOCKYER, Attorney General; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 437–438

Head Matter:
Ras Adisa Gamba OLUWA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bill LOCKYER, Attorney General; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 05-56230.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 9, 2007 .
Filed July 19, 2007.
Ras Adisa Gamba Oluwa, Crescent City, CA, pro se.
J. Conrad Schroeder, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California prisoner Ras Adisa Gamba Oluwa appeals pro se from the district court judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as second or successive. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
We reject the government's contention that we lack jurisdiction absent a certificate of appealability. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1231-32 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam).
Oluwa contends that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) does not apply to petitions challenging state prison administrative decisions. We reject this contention. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); cf. White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1011 (9th Cir.2004) (contrasting the text of § 2244(b) with the text of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) in determining that the latter does not apply to challenges to prison administrative decisions).
We also conclude that the district court properly dismissed Oluwa's petition as second or successive without authorization. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), (2); Babbitt v. Woodford, 177 F.3d 744, 745-47 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.