Case 2:23-cv-00769-JVS-ADS Document 5 Filed 02/22/23 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:139

1 JS-6

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 SAUL BRUCE PRECIADO, Case No. 2:23-00769 JVS (ADS)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING SUCCESSIVE 13 v. FEDERAL HABEAS PETITION

14 NEIL MCDOWELL, Warden,

15 Respondent.

16 17 Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State 18 Custody pursuant to

(“Petition”) filed by Petitioner Saul Bruce 19 Preciado, an inmate at Ironwood State Prison in Blythe, California. (Dkt. No. 1.) The 20 Court’s review of the Petition, the Court’s own records, and public records reveals that 21 this Petition is a successive petition which must be dismissed. 22 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 23 A review of the Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system reflects 24 that Petitioner previously filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Case 2:23-cv-00769-JVS-ADS Document 5 Filed 02/22/23 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:140

1 Custody on March 2, 2015. That petition, Case No. 2:15-01471 JVS (JCG) (“First Habeas 2 Action”), challenged his 2002 conviction in Los Angeles County Superior Court. 3 Judgment was entered dismissing the First Habeas Action with prejudice as untimely on 4 May 14, 2015. (First Habeas Action, Dkt. Nos. 11 and 12.) On February 1, 2023, 5 Petitioner filed the instant Petition, which also challenges his 2002 conviction. (Dkt. 6 No. 1.)

7 II. DISCUSSION 8 This Petition is an improper successive habeas petition filed without the 9 necessary Ninth Circuit authorization which must be dismissed.

reads, 10 in pertinent part, as follows: 11 (b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be 12 dismissed. . . . 13 (3)(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court 14 of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. 15 16

; see also Rule 9 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (“Before 17 presenting a second or successive motion, the moving party must obtain an order from 18 the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the motion . . . 19 .”). Furthermore, Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases provides that if it plainly 20 appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits attached to it that the Petitioner is 21 not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall summarily dismiss the petition. 22 The instant Petition is Petitioner’s second federal habeas petition challenging his 23 imprisonment as a result of his 2002 conviction. “If an application is ‘second or 24 successive,’ the petitioner must obtain leave from the Court of Appeals before filing it 2 ase 2:23-cv-00769-JVS-ADS Document5 Filed 02/22/23 Page 3of3 Page ID#:141

1 || with the district court.” Magwood v. Patterson,

, 330—31 (2010) (citing 2 ||

(b)(3)(A)). “When the AEDPA is in play, the district court may not, in 3 || the absence of proper authorization from the court of appeals, consider a second or 4 || successive habeas application.” Cooper v. Calderon,

(9th Cir. 2001) 5 || (per curiam) (internal quotations and citation omitted). A search of the Ninth Circuit’s 6 || electronic docketing system on PACER does not reflect, and Petitioner has provided no 7 || evidence, that he obtained Ninth Circuit permission to file a successive petition. 8 CONCLUSION 9 The Petition is a “second or successive” petition filed without Ninth Circuit 10 || authorization. As such, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider its merits. Based on the 11 || foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is summarily dismissed with prejudice. 12 13 14 qa fan 15 || Dated: February 22, 2023 _gii —— YU L Je L— — T HONORABLE JAMES V. SELNA 16 United States District Judge 17 || Presented by: 18 /s/ Autumn D. Spaeth THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH 19 || United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24