The opinion of the court was delivered by: George H. King United States District Judge
OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
On July 16, 1999, a San Bernardino County jury convicted Petitioner of premeditated attempted murder, kidnapping, and forcible rape. (Petition at 1a). Petitioner was sentenced to 16 years in prison plus life with the possibility of parole. (Id.)
On June 27, 2001, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction in the Central District in Truax v. Giurbino, Case No. EDCV 01-453-GHK-Mc ("Truax I").*fn1 On May 9, 2002, judgment was entered denying the petition on the merits with prejudice. Id., Dkt. No. 20. On April 2, 2004, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in Case No. 02-56246, Dkt. No. 34.
On December 6, 2006, Petitioner filed an application for leave to file a second or successive petition in Ninth Circuit Case No. 06-75579, which was denied on February 28, 2007.
On June 17, 2008, Petitioner filed another habeas petition in the Central District in Case No. EDCV 08-810-GHK-CT. On July 2, 2008, the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as a second or successive petition, and judgment was entered accordingly. Id., Dkt. Nos. 11-12.
On October 8, 2008, in Ninth Circuit Case No. 08-73213, the court denied Petitioner's application for authorization to file a second or successive petition. On October 19, 2009, in Ninth Circuit Case No. 09-72972, the court denied Petitioner's application for authorization to file a second or successive petition.
On August 20, 2012, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he challenges his 1999 conviction. (Petition at 1a.)
DISCUSSION The Petition was filed after enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). Therefore, the court applies the AEDPA in reviewing the Petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336, 117 S. Ct. 2059, 138 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1997).
The AEDPA provides, in pertinent part: "Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is 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." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). A district court does not have jurisdiction to consider a "second or successive" petition absent authorization from the Ninth Circuit. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152, 127 S. Ct. 793, 166 L. Ed. 2d 628 (2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) ("When the AEDPA is in play, the district court may not, in the absence of proper authorization from the court of appeals, consider a second or successive habeas application.") (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Here, the Petition is a second or successive petition that challenges the same conviction and sentence imposed by the same judgment of the state court as in Truax I.
It plainly appears from the face of the Petition that Petitioner has not received authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive petition. This court must, therefore, dismiss the Petition as a successive petition for which it lacks ...