ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.
On May 1, 2013, petitioner Izea Reed ("petitioner"), a California prisoner who is proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the "Current Federal Petition"). The Current Federal Petition appears to challenge petitioner's 1997 conviction following a jury trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court (the "State Case" or "State Conviction").
Based on the record (including facts as to which this Court takes judicial notice as detailed below) and the applicable law, the Current Federal Petition is denied and this action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner did not obtain the requisite authorization from the Court of Appeals to file a successive petition. Further, the Clerk of the Court is directed to refer the Current Federal Petition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit") pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3(a).
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. State Conviction, Direct Appeal, and State Habeas Petitions
On August 11, 1997, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury convicted petitioner of failure to register as a sex offender under California law. The jury also found that petitioner had previously been convicted of two serious felonies and served three prison terms. On May 19, 1997, the trial court sentenced petitioner to 25 years to life in state prison.
Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment on November 16, 1998. Petitioner thereafter filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on January 20, 2000.
Petitioner thereafter sought, and was denied habeas relief in the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court.
B. First Federal Petition and First Ninth Circuit Action
On February 18, 2000, petitioner filed the First Federal Petition in which he challenged his sentence in the State Case, asserting that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment and a violation of prior plea agreements, and that it violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. On July 17, 2000, judgment was entered dismissing the First Federal Petition with prejudice on its merits.
On November 4, 2003, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment in the First Ninth Circuit Action.
C. Second Ninth Circuit Action and Second Federal Petition
On September 10, 2008, in the Second Ninth Circuit Action, the Ninth Circuit denied petitioner's application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § ...