Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Willie Ray Jones v. Gipson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 7, 2013

WILLIE RAY JONES,
PETITIONER,
v.
GIPSON, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. On July 6, 2012, the court ordered petitioner to show cause why this petition should not be dismissed as a second or successive petition filed without proper authorization.

Petitioner has filed several requests for additional time (Docs. 7, 9, 10, 11). His original request was granted, providing petitioner with additional time due to his inability to access the prison law library. However, his other requests indicate he is now simply waiting a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as to his appeal and/or application to file a second or successive petition. Waiting for a decision from the Court of Appeals is not an adequate ground in which to grant petitioner additional time to respond to the pending order to show cause.

Petitioner acknowledges the current petition pending before this court is a second or successive petition filed without proper authorization. Petitioner indicates that authorization is currently being sought in the Ninth Circuit. Once petitioner receives a final determination from the Ninth Circuit, and if he is given authorization to do so, petitioner may file a new petition for writ of habeas corpus with this court. However, as to his current petition, petitioner acknowledges he did not receive that authorization prior to filing with this court. As such, petitioner's petition is a second or successive petition, and this court lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition on the merits.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's motions for extension of time (Docs. 9, 10, 11) are denied;

2. Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed as a second or successive petition filed without authorization; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

20130507

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.