1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN C. GUZMAN, ) NO. SA CV 21-1518-VAP(E) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) 13 v. ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL ) 14 B. CATES, Warden, ) ) 15 Respondent. ) ______________________________) 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner confined at the California 19 Correctional Institution located in Tehachapi, Kern County, 20 California, filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” on 21 September 9, 2021 in the United States District Court for the Eastern 22 District of California. On September 14, 2021, the United States 23 District Court for the Eastern District of California transferred the 24 Petition to this Court. 25 26 The Petition seeks to challenge a 2001 criminal judgment entered 27 in Orange Superior Court case number 99NF1436 (Petition, p. 2). This 28 judgment resulted from a jury verdict finding Petitioner guilty of two 1 fourteen in violation of California Penal Code section 288(a) (id.). 2 Petitioner previously challenged this same Superior Court judgment in 3 a prior habeas corpus petition filed in this Court (“the prior 4 petition”). See Guzman v. Clark, SA CV 06-465-R(E).1 On January 16, 5 2008, this Court entered Judgment in Guzman v. Clark, SA CV 06-465- 6 R(E), denying and dismissing the prior petition with prejudice. The 7 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied 8 Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability on November 9 18, 2010. 10 11 The Court must dismiss the present Petition in accordance with 12

(b) (as amended by the “Antiterrorism and 13 Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996”). Section 2244(b) requires that 14 a petitioner seeking to file a “second or successive” habeas petition 15 first obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals. See Burton v.

U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (where petitioner did not receive 17 authorization from Court of Appeals before filing second or successive 18 petition, “the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain 19 [the petition]”); Barapind v. Reno,

(9th Cir. 20 2000) (“the prior-appellate-review mechanism set forth in § 2244(b) 21 requires the permission of the court of appeals before ‘a second or 22 23 1 Although the docket in Guzman v. Clark, SACV 06-465-R 24 (E), does not contain an image of the prior petition, the Report and Recommendation filed in that case reflects that the petition 25 challenged Petitioner’s conviction for two counts of violation of California Penal Code section 288(a) and references the 26 California Court of Appeal’s opinion in People v. Guzman,

(Cal. App. Feb. 27, 2003) (see Report and Recommendation 27 filed on February 21, 2007 in Guzman v. Clark, SA CV 06-465-R(E), p. 2). The Court of Appeal’s opinion in People v. Guzman 28 confirms that Petitioner challenged therein his conviction in 1 successive habeas application under § 2254’ may be commenced”). A 2 petition need not be repetitive to be “second or successive,” within 3 the meaning of

(b). See, e.g., Thompson v. 4 Calderon,

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

5 (1998); Calbert v. Marshall,

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

, 2008). Petitioner evidently has not yet obtained 7 authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.2 Consequently, 8 this Court cannot entertain the present Petition. See Burton v.

U.S. at 157; see also Remsen v. Att’y Gen. of Calif., 471 10 Fed. App’x 571, 571 (9th Cir. 2012) (if a petitioner fails to obtain 11 authorization from the Court of Appeals to file a second or successive 12 petition, “the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the 13 petition and should dismiss it.”) (citation omitted). 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 25 2 The Court takes judicial notice of the Ninth Circuit 26 docket, available on the PACER database at www.pacer.gov. See Mir v. Little Company of Mary Hosp.,

(9th Cir. 27 1988) (court may take judicial notice of court records). The docket does not show than any person named Juan Guzman has ever 28 sought or obtained permission from the Ninth Circuit to file a 1 For all of the foregoing reasons, the Petition is denied and 2|| dismissed without prejudice.’ 3 4 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 5 6 DATED: September 20, 2021. 7 pprcnn Do Pht 8 IRGINIA A. PHILLIPS 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 PRESENTED this 16th day of 12 September, 2021, by: 13 14 [S/ 15 CHARLES F. EICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25) — 26 ° To the extent Petitioner also may seek to assert a civil rights claim alleging wrongdoing by prison authorities, 27|| venue for such a claim would be proper only in the district of Petitioner’s place of incarceration, i.e., the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See

(b), 1391(b).