1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EMMETT JOHNSON, Case No. 2:21-cv-04259-JVS (AFM)

12 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING 13 HABEAS PETITION FOR LACK OF v. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 14 CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner, was convicted of murder in 1996. (Los Angeles 19 County Superior Court Case No. TA041797). He is currently serving a sentence of 20 life without parole imposed as a result of that conviction. On May 20, 2021, 21 Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 1996 22 conviction. See

. (ECF 1.) 23 Petitioner has filed numerous prior habeas corpus petitions in the Central 24 District of California challenging his 1996 conviction. The first, filed in September 25 2010, was summarily dismissed on procedural grounds. Case No. 2:10-cv-06792- 26 JVS(RZ). The second petition, filed in December 2013, was dismissed with prejudice 27 as time-barred. Case No. 2:13-cv-07464-JVS(RZ). Three subsequent petitions were 28 each dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because they were successive. See Case Nos. 1 2:14-cv-05869-JVS(RZ); 2:16-cv-03887-JVS(AFM); 2:17-04564-JVS(AFM). 2 The current petition alleges that Petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated 3 because he was detained for five and a half months after his arrest without being 4 notified of the nature of the charges against him; while Petitioner was detained, “the 5 arresting agency” was collecting inadmissible statements against him; and Petitioner 6 was deprived of his right to a speedy trial. (ECF 1 at 5-10.) Because the petition 7 challenges the same judgment of conviction as did the petition in Case Number CV 8 13-7464-JVS(RZ), which was dismissed with prejudice as untimely, it is successive. 9 See McNabb v. Yates,

(9th Cir. 2009) (holding that dismissal of 10 a habeas petition as time barred under

(d)(1) constitutes a 11 disposition on the merits and renders a subsequent petition second or successive for 12 purposes of

(b)). 13 “Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in 14 the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an 15 order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. 16 § 2244(b)(3)(A). Absent authorization from the Court of Appeals, this Court lacks 17 jurisdiction over a successive petition. See Magwood v. Patterson,

, 330- 18 331 (2010); Cooper v. Calderon,

(9th Cir. 2001). 19 Petitioner has not obtained authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file this 20 second or successive petition. Consequently, this Court is without jurisdiction to 21 entertain it.1 See Burton v. Stewart,

(2007). To the extent 22 Petitioner might contend that the petition meets an exception to the bar on successive 23 petitions, this argument must first be presented to the Court of Appeals. 24

25 1 Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule No. 22-3(a), when a request for authorization to file a successive 26 petition is “mistakenly submitted” to a district court, it must be referred to the Ninth Circuit. Rule 22-3(a) also provides that a district court may refer such a petition to the Ninth Circuit when to so 27 would serve the interests of justice. Neither circumstance is present in this case. Nevertheless, the Clerk is directed to mail petitioner a copy of Ninth Circuit Form 12 so that petitioner may file an 28 application for leave to file a second or successive petition in the Court of Appeals. 1 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this action be summarily dismissed 2 || without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 3 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 4 +) 5 / le □□ 6 || DATED: June 02, 2021 ow / 1 JAMES V.SELNA 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28