1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUILLERMO GARCIA, ) NO. CV 21-1911-CAS(E) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) 13 v. ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL ) 14 JAMES S. HILL (“Warden”), ) ) 15 Respondent. ) ______________________________) 16 17 18 On February 25, 2021, Petitioner filed a purported “Second 19 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State 20 Custody” (“the Petition”). The Petition challenges Petitioner’s 2004 21 Los Angeles Superior Court conviction and sentence (Petition at 2). 22 Petitioner previously challenged the same conviction and sentence in a 23 habeas petition filed in this Court in 2005. See Garcia v. Yates, No. 24 CV 05-7439-JHN(OP) (“the prior habeas petition”). By Judgment entered 25 May 13, 2010, this Court denied and dismissed the prior habeas 26 petition with prejudice. By Order entered July 2, 2010, this Court 27 denied Petitioner’s belated attempt to add additional claims to the 28 prior habeas petition. On January 20, 2012, the United States Court 1 of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s request for a 2 certificate of appealability in Case No. CV 05-7439-JHN(OP). 3 4 The Court must dismiss the present Petition in accordance with 5

(b) (as amended by the “Antiterrorism and 6 Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996”). Section 2244(b) requires that 7 a petitioner seeking to file a “second or successive” habeas petition 8 first obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals. See Burton v.

U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (where petitioner did not receive 10 authorization from Court of Appeals before filing second or successive 11 petition, “the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain 12 [the petition]”); Barapind v. Reno,

(9th Cir. 13 2000) (“the prior-appellate-review mechanism set forth in § 2244(b) 14 requires the permission of the court of appeals before ‘a second or 15 successive habeas application under § 2254’ may be commenced”). A 16 petition need not be repetitive to be “second or successive,” within 17 the meaning of

(b). See, e.g., Thompson v. 18 Calderon,

, 920-21 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

19 (1998); Calbert v. Marshall,

, at *2-4 (C.D. Cal.

, 2008). Petitioner evidently has not yet obtained 21 authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.1 Consequently, 22 this Court cannot entertain the present Petition. See Burton v.

U.S. at 157; see also Remsen v. Att’y Gen. of Calif., 471 24 25 1 The docket for the United States Court of Appeals for 26 the Ninth Circuit, available on the Pacer database on www.pacer.gov, does not reflect that anyone named Guillermo 27 Garcia has received authorization to file a second or successive petition. See Mir v. Little Company of Mary Hosp.,

, 28 649 (9th Cir. 1988) (court may take judicial notice of court 1) Fed. App’x 571, 571 (9th Cir. 2012) (if a petitioner fails to obtain 2] authorization from the Court of Appeals to file a second or successive 3] petition, “the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the 4] petition and should dismiss it.”) (citation omitted). 5 6 For all of the foregoing reasons, the Petition is denied and 7| dismissed without prejudice. 8 9 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 10 11 DATED: March 3, 2021. 12 , . 13 hh thet Anyhe 14 CHRISTINA A. SNYDER 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18] PRESENTED this 2nd day 19] of March, 2021, by: 20 21 [S/o CHARLES F. EICK 22| UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28