1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAURICE HARPER, Case No. 2:21-cv-06819-FMO (AFM) 12 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS v. CORPUS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT 14 MATTER JURISDICTION JASON BLACK, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 In 2018, Petitioner was convicted of contact with a minor for a sexual offense 19 and pandering of a minor under the age of sixteen. He was sentenced to state prison 20 for a term of 16 years. (ECF 1; see also People v. Harper,

, at *1 21 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2018). The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment 22 of conviction. Petitioner did not file a timely petition for review. Instead, he filed 23 habeas corpus petitions in the California Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, 24 and the California Supreme Court, all of which were denied. (ECF 1 at 3-5.) 25 On September 20, 2019, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 26 in this Court challenging his 2018 conviction. See Harper v. Pfeiffer, Case No. 2:19- 27 cv-08166-FMO (AFM). The petition raised five claims for relief. On May 11, 2020, 28 this Court entered judgment denying the petition on the merits and dismissing the 1 action with prejudice. Both this Court and the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s 2 request for a certificate of appealability. 3 The current petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed on August 23, 2021, 4 again challenges Petitioner’s 2018 conviction and sentence. 5 “Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in 6 the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an 7 order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. 8 § 2244(b)(3)(A). Absent authorization from the Court of Appeals, this Court lacks 9 jurisdiction over a successive petition. See Magwood v. Patterson,

, 330- 10 331 (2010); Cooper v. Calderon,

(9th Cir. 2001). 11 Because Petitioner has not obtained authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file 12 this second or successive petition, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain it.1 13 See Burton v. Stewart,

(2007). Furthermore, to the extent that 14 Petitioner might contend that his petition meets an exception to the bar on successive 15 petitions, his argument must first be presented to the Court of Appeals. 16 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this action be dismissed without 17 prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 18 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 19 20 DATED: August 31, 2021

21 /s/ 22 FERNANDO M. OLGUIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 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.