ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 3, 2010, the undersigned ordered respondent to file and serve a response to the petition. On November 2, 2010, respondent filed the pending motion to dismiss, arguing that petitioner's habeas petition is a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Petitioner has filed an opposition to the motion, and respondent has filed a reply.
On March 12, 2004, a San Joaquin County Superior Court jury found petitioner guilty of first-degree robbery. The jury also found that petitioner had a prior serious felony conviction, had served a prior prison term, and had two prior convictions within the meaning of California's Three Strikes law. Petitioner was subsequently sentenced in the San Joaquin County Superior Court to thirty-two years to life in state prison. On December 7, 2005, the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District affirmed the judgment of conviction. On March 15, 2006, the California Supreme Court denied review. (Pet. at 2, Resp't's Lodged Docs. 1-4.)
On July 3, 2007, petitioner filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court. See Case No. CIV S-07-1315 FCD CMK P.*fn1 On May 20, 2008, the court dismissed his federal petition as having been untimely filed. Petitioner then filed three petitions seeking habeas corpus relief in state court. The San Joaquin County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court all denied him relief. (Resp't's Lodged Docs. 5-14.) On August 23, 2010, petitioner commenced this action by filing the pending petition.
RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Respondent argues that the court should dismiss the pending petition because it is successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Specifically, respondent argues that prior to filing the pending petition, petitioner filed a federal habeas petition in this court challenging the same state court conviction and sentence. See Case No. CIV S-07-1315 FCD CMK P. This court dismissed the previously-filed habeas action as untimely. Respondent contends that the pending petition challenging the same conviction and sentence must be dismissed because petitioner has not obtained an order from the Ninth Circuit as required, authorizing him to file a second or successive federal habeas petition. (Resp't's Mot. to Dismiss at 3.)
II. Petitioner's Opposition
In opposition to respondent's motion, petitioner acknowledges that he previously filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court but argues that the court dismissed it as untimely without considering his claims. In petitioner's view, he has acted diligently and this court should rule on the merits of his new federal habeas claims. (Pet'r's Opp'n to Resp't's Mot. to Dismiss at 1-5.)
In reply, respondent reiterates that the court's dismissal of petitioner's prior habeas petition as untimely renders the pending federal petition successive. Respondent repeats that the court lacks jurisdiction to consider petitioner's successive petition because he has not obtained the required prior authorization from the Ninth Circuit. (Resp't's Reply at 2.)
"A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). This is the case unless,
(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme ...