Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
THOMPSON v. HERNANDEZ
September 22, 2005.
JOSEPH E. THOMPSON, Petitioner,
ROBERT J. HERNANDEZ, Warden, Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES LORENZ, District Judge
SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF SUCCESSIVE PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(3)(A) GATEKEEPER PROVISION
Petitioner Joseph E. Thompson, a state prisoner proceeding pro
se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. The instant Petition is not the first Petition for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus Petitioner has submitted to this Court
challenging his September 1996 conviction in San Diego Superior
Court case No. SCD 109348.
PRIOR FEDERAL HABEAS PETITIONS DENIED ON THE MERITS
On November 8, 2000, Petitioner filed in this Court a Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Case No. 00cv2256-K. In that
petition, Petitioner challenged his conviction in San Diego
Superior Court case No. SCD 109348. (See Pet. filed 11/8/00 in
Case No. 00cv2256-K at 1.) On September 20, 2001, this Court
denied the petition on the merits. (See Order filed 9/20/01 in
Case No. 00cv2256-K.) Petitioner appealed that determination. On
December 13, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the denial of the petition. (See Doc. No. 81 in Case No.
00cv2256-K.) INSTANT PETITION BARRED BY GATEKEEPER PROVISION
Petitioner is now contending that was denied his due process
right to have an unbiased mental competency determination and his
right not to be convicted of a crime at a time when he was not
mentally competent. (Pet. at 6.) Petitioner acknowledges that he
has filed a prior federal habeas petition challenging the same
conviction in this Court Case No. 00cv2256-K. (Id. at 5.) He
contends, however, that he discovered the factual predicate of
his new claim in 2004, based on subsequent doctor's evaluations.
(Pet. at 6.)
Unless a petitioner shows he or she has obtained an order from
the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court
to consider a successive petition, the petition may not be filed
in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Here,
there is no indication the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has
granted Petitioner leave to file a successive petition. Rather,
Petitioner specifically acknowledges that he has received no such
permission. (Pet. at 5.) Although Petitioner contends the factual
predicate of the current claim was only recently discovered, he
must nevertheless obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals before this Court can consider his claim.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
Because there is no indication Petitioner has obtained
permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a
successive petition, this Court cannot consider his Petition.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice
to Petitioner filing a petition in this court if he obtains the
necessary order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
(Attached for Petitioner's convenience is a blank Ninth Circuit
Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition.)
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For