1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOVENCIO DELA CALZADA, Case No. 23-cv-00030-WHO (PR)

Petitioner, 8 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 PATRICK COVELLO, Respondent. 11

12 13 INTRODUCTION 14 Petitioner Jovencio Dela Calzada has filed a habeas petition under

15 in which he challenges the same state court judgment he challenged in a prior habeas 16 action in this district, Dela Calzada v. Gipson, No. 14-cv-00103 WHO. The pending 17 petition will be dismissed as second or successive to the prior petition. 18 BACKGROUND 19 The first habeas petition was denied on the merits. (Dela Calzada, No. 14-cv- 20 00103, Dkt. No. 19.) Petitioner appealed, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied 21 his request for a certificate of appealability. (Id., Dkt. No. 33.) 22 The prior and current petitions are challenges to the 2011 California state 23 convictions and sentence Dela Calzada received in the Contra Costa Superior Court for 24 committing multiple sexual offenses against two of his stepdaughters, for which he 25 received a sentence of 173 years to life in state prison. (Id., Order Denying Petition, Dkt. 26 No. 19 at 1-2; Instant Petition, Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2; People v. Dela Calzada, No. A133098, 27

(Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2012) (unpublished).) 1 DISCUSSION 2 The pending petition is barred by the rule against filing a second or successive 3 || petition. As noted, Dela Calzada has filed at least one previous petition regarding the same 4 || state court judgment challenged in the pending petition. In order to file a second or 5 |] successive petition, a petitioner must obtain an order from the Court of Appeals 6 || authorizing the district court to consider the petition. See

(b)(3)(A). 7 || Without that authorization, a district court lacks jurisdiction over the petition. Burton v. 8 || Stewart,

(2007). Because Dela Calzada has not shown that he has 9 || received such authorization, the pending petition must be dismissed as second or 10 || successive, the filing of which has not been authorized by the Court of Appeals. 11 || Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED. CONCLUSION 5 13 The pending petition is DISMISSED as second or successive, the filing of which 14 || has not been authorized by the Court of Appeals. 15 A certificate of appealability will not issue. Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of a 16 || reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 3 17 || constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district 18 court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). 19 The filing fee has been paid. (Dkt. No. 3.) 20 The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent, and close the file. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: May25, 2023 i UOe 2 AM H. ORRI 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28