ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
R. GARY KLAUSNER, District Judge.
On September 12, 2013, petitioner Robert Bishop Parham ("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 challenges petitioner's 2009 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 and Direct Appeal
On April 28, 2009, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury found petitioner guilty of first degree residential robbery, first degree burglary with a person present, and second degree robbery. Petitioner admitted that he had suffered one prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of California Penal Code section 667(a)(1) and had served six prior prison terms within the meaning of California Penal Code section 667.5(b).
On July 17, 2009, the trial court sentenced petitioner to a total term of sixteen (16) years in state prison.
On December 28, 2010, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. On April 13, 2011, the California Supreme Court denied review without comment.
B. First Federal Petition/First Federal Action
On October 13, 2011, petitioner filed the First Federal Petition in which he challenged his conviction in the State Case, claiming (1) the trial court violated his federal constitutional right to confrontation when it admitted a slip of paper with a license plate number written on it and permitted a law enforcement officer to testify regarding out-of-court statements of the witness who generated the note ("Confrontation Clause Claim"); and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for second degree robbery. On August 22, 2013, judgment was entered denying the First Federal Petition with prejudice on its merits and dismissing the First Federal Action with prejudice. On the same date, the Court's order denying a certificate of appealability was entered. Petitioner has not filed a notice of appeal.
C. Current Federal Petition
As noted above, on September 12, 2013, petitioner filed the Current Federal Petition which again challenges the judgment in the State Case. Although not a model of clarity, the Current Federal Petition appears to seek to revive the Confrontation Clause Claim by offering additional legal authorities in support thereof. The record does not reflect that petitioner has ...