Case 2:23-cv-00579-FMO-E Document 5 Filed 01/30/23 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:62

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DESMOND RONELL PRYER, ) NO. CV 23-579-FMO(E) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) 13 v. ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL ) 14 BRYAN D. PHILLIPS - WARDEN, ) ) 15 Respondent. ) ______________________________) 16 17 18 Petitioner filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a 19 Person in State Custody” on January 23, 2023. The Petition seeks to 20 challenge a Superior Court criminal judgment in “Case number MA068111” 21 (Petition at 2). Petitioner previously challenged this same Superior 22 Court judgment in a prior habeas corpus petition filed in this Court. 23 See Pryer v. Cisneros, CV 22-1504-FMO(E). On July 11, 2022, this 24 Court entered Judgment in Pryer v. Cisneros, CV 22-1504-FMO(E), 25 denying and dismissing the prior petition with prejudice. 26 27 The Court must dismiss the present Petition in accordance with 28

(b) (as amended by the “Antiterrorism and Case 2:23-cv-00579-FMO-E Document 5 Filed 01/30/23 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:63

1 Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996”). Section 2244(b) requires that 2 a petitioner seeking to file a “second or successive” habeas petition 3 first obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals. See Burton v.

U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (where petitioner did not receive 5 authorization from Court of Appeals before filing second or successive 6 petition, “the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain 7 [the petition]”); Barapind v. Reno,

(9th Cir. 8 2000) (“the prior-appellate-review mechanism set forth in § 2244(b) 9 requires the permission of the court of appeals before ‘a second or 10 successive habeas application under § 2254’ may be commenced”). A 11 petition need not be repetitive to be “second or successive,” within 12 the meaning of

(b). See, e.g., Thompson v. 13 Calderon,

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

14 (1998); Calbert v. Marshall,

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

, 2008). Petitioner evidently has not yet obtained 16 authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Consequently, 17 this Court cannot entertain the present Petition. See Burton v.

U.S. at 157; see also Remsen v. Att’y Gen. of Calif., 471 19 Fed. App’x 571, 571 (9th Cir. 2012) (if a petitioner fails to obtain 20 authorization from the Court of Appeals to file a second or successive 21 petition, “the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the 22 petition and should dismiss it.”) (citation omitted). 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 Case 2:23-cv-00579-FMO-E Document 5 Filed 01/30/23 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:64

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: January 30, 2023. 7 8 _____________/_s_/____________________ FERNANDO M. OLGUIN 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 PRESENTED this 27th day of 12 January, 2023, by: 13 14 /S/ CHARLES F. EICK 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3