1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KEVIN DEAN BREWER, Case No. 22-cv-01777-WHO (PR) aka MICHAEL GREEN, 8 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v. 10 SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, Dkt. Nos. 6, 8, 10 and 11 11 Respondent.

12

13 INTRODUCTION 14 Petitioner Kevin Dean Brewer, aka Michael Green, has filed another petition 15 challenging the same state convictions he challenged in four prior habeas actions he filed 16 in this district: Green v. Knipp, No. 12-cv-01689-WHO, Brewer v. Perez, No. 15-cv- 17 02456-WHO, Green v. Covello, 19-cv-00176-WHO, and Brewer v. Warden, No. 20-cv- 18 03975-WHO. The instant petition will be dismissed as second or successive to the prior 19 petitions. 20 BACKGROUND 21 The first habeas petition was denied on the merits. (Green, No. 12-cv-01689-WHO, 22 Docket No. 43.) Petitioner appealed, but his appeal was terminated by the Ninth Circuit 23 because it was not timely filed. (Id., Dkt. Nos. 45, 47 and 50.) 24 The second habeas action was dismissed as second or successive. (Brewer, No. 15- 25 cv-02456-WHO, Dkt. No. 4.) Petitioner appealed, but the Ninth Circuit terminated his 26 appeal when it denied his request for a certificate of appealability. (Id., Dkt No. 9.) 27 1 The third habeas action was dismissed as second or successive. (Green, No. 19-cv- 2 00176-WHO.) Petitioner appealed, but the Ninth Circuit terminated his appeal when it 3 denied his request for a certificate of appealability. (Green v. Covello, Ninth Circuit Case 4 No. 19-15204, Dkt. No. 2.) 5 The fourth habeas was dismissed as second or successive. (Brewer, 20-cv-03975- 6 WHO.) Petitioner appealed, but the Ninth Circuit terminated his appeal when it denied his 7 request for a certificate of appealability. (Dkt. No. 10.) The appellate court also denied his 8 motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 13.) The United State Supreme Court denied his 9 petition for writ of certiorari. (Dkt. No. 15.) 10 These prior petitions and the current petition are challenges to petitioner’s 2009 11 state court convictions for the sexual abuse and sexual assault of a child, for which he 12 received a sentence of 61 years to life.1 13 DISCUSSION 14 The instant petition is barred by the rule against filing a second or successive 15 petition. As noted, petitioner has filed at least one previous petition regarding the same 16 convictions at issue in the instant petition. In order to file a second or successive petition, 17 petitioner must obtain an order from the Court of Appeals authorizing the district court to 18 consider the petition. See

(b)(3)(A). Because petitioner has not shown 19 that he has received such authorization, the instant petition must be dismissed as second or 20 successive, the filing of which has not been authorized by the Court of Appeals. 21 Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED. 22 CONCLUSION 23 The instant petition is DISMISSED as second or successive, the filing of which has 24 not been authorized by the Court of Appeals. 25 Brewer’s motion to file an amended petition is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 6.) The 26 amended petition appears as Dkt. No. 7. His motion for joinder, which is a request to add 27 1 || claims without filing an amended petition, is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 11.) His motion to 2 || proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. (Dkt. Nos. 8 and 10.) 3 A certificate of appealability will not issue. Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of 4 || reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 5 || constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district 6 court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). 7 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of 8 || respondent, and close the file. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: April 22, 2022 . M H. ORRI a 12 United States District Judge

© 15 16

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28