Case 2:22-cv-03115-DOC-GJS Document 4 Filed 05/18/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 DAVID CHESTRA, Case No. 2:22-cv-03115-DOC (GJS) 12 Petitioner ORDER: DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. AS SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 14 R.C. JOHNSON, WARDEN, APPEALABILITY; AND REFERRING PETITION 15 Respondent. PURSUANT TO NINTH CIRCUIT RULE 22-3(a) 16

17 18 On May 29, 2019, Petitioner, a state prisoner, commenced a

19 action in Case No. 2:19-cv-04675-RSWL (GJS) (the “Prior Petition”). The Prior 20 Petition sought habeas relief with respect to Petitioner’s 2015 Los Angeles County 21 Superior Court conviction for first degree murder and related sentence of 100 years 22 to life (the “State Conviction”), and the Prior Petition raised five claims. On 23 February 1, 2021, United States District Judge Ronald S.W. Lew denied the Prior 24 Petition on its merits and dismissed the case with prejudice, and Judgment was 25 entered. Petitioner did not appeal.1 26 On May 6, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant Petition, which again challenges 27

28 1 Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court has taken judicial notice of its records and files, as well as the Ninth Circuit dockets available electronically through the PACER system. Case 2:22-cv-03115-DOC-GJS Document 4 Filed 05/18/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:32

1 the State Conviction. The instant Petition alleges the very same five claims that 2 were raised and resolved through the Prior Petition action. 3 4 DISCUSSION 5 State habeas petitioners generally may file only one federal habeas petition 6 challenging a particular state conviction and/or sentence. See, e.g.,

2244(b)(1) (courts must dismiss a claim presented in a second or successive petition 8 when that claim was presented in a prior petition) and § 2244(b)(2) (with several 9 exceptions not applicable here, courts must dismiss a claim presented in a second or 10 successive petition when that claim was not presented in a prior petition). “A 11 habeas petition is second or successive . . . if it raises claims that were or could have 12 been adjudicated on the merits” in an earlier Section 2254 petition. McNabb v.

F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 2009). 14 Even when Section 2244(b)(2) provides a basis for pursuing a second or 15 successive Section 2254 habeas petition, state habeas petitioners seeking relief in 16 this District Court must first obtain authorization from the Ninth Circuit before 17 filing any such second or successive petition.

(b)(3). The Ninth 18 Circuit “may authorize the filing of the second or successive [petition] only if it 19 presents a claim not previously raised that satisfies one of the two grounds 20 articulated in § 2242(b)(2).” Burton v. Stewart,

(2007). 21 The Prior Petition raised five federal constitutional claims challenging the 22 State Conviction and was denied on its merits over a year ago, and Petitioner failed 23 to appeal that decision. The instant Petition once more challenges the State 24 Conviction based solely on the very same claims that already have been resolved 25 against him on their merits. The instant Petition, therefore, is second or successive 26 within the meaning of Section 2244(b)(1). 27 The Court has reviewed the Ninth Circuit’s dockets and there is no indication 28 that Petitioner has sought, much less obtained, authorization from the Ninth Circuit 2 Cas@ 2:22-cv-03115-DOC-GJS Document4 Filed 05/18/22 Page3of3 Page ID #:33

1 || to bring the instant Petition, and thus, the Court is without jurisdiction to entertain it. 2 ||

(b)(3)(A); see also Burton,

(district court lacks 3 || jurisdiction to consider the merits of a second or successive petition absent prior 4 || authorization from the circuit court); Cooper v. Calderon,

(9th 5 || Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (“When the AEDPA is in play, the district court may not, in 6 || the absence of proper authorization from the court of appeals, consider a second or 7 || successive habeas application.”). 8 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: the Petition is dismissed without 9 || prejudice; and Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action without prejudice. 10 In addition, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 11 || Cases in the United States District Courts, the Court has considered whether a 12 || certificate of appealability is warranted in this case. See

(c)(2); 13 || Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). The Court concludes that a 14 || certificate of appealability is unwarranted, and thus, a certificate of appealability is 15 |} DENIED. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall refer the 17 || Petition to the Ninth Circuit pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3(a). 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 31 || DATED: May 18, 2022 Abn £0 Cut 2 DAVID O. CARTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 || PRESENTED BY: 25

27 ‘|| GAIL J. STANDISH 38 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE