1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 DENNIS L. ARMSTRONG, 8 Case No. 24-cv-05580-RS (PR) Petitioner, 9 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 10 ROB ST. ANDRE, 11 Respondent. 12

13 14 INTRODUCTION 15 Petitioner has filed a habeas petition under

in which he challenges 16 the same state court judgment he challenged in a prior section 2254 habeas action he filed 17 in this district, Armstrong v. Runnels, No. 03-cv-03374-SI. The present petition will be 18 dismissed as second or successive to the prior petition. Petitioner’s application to proceed 19 in forma pauperis (IFP) is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 14.) 20 BACKGROUND 21 The first habeas petition challenged the 2000 California state convictions petitioner 22 received in the Alameda County Superior Court for robbery, for which he received a 23 sentence of 31 years and four months. The petition was denied on the merits. (Armstrong 24 v. Runnels, No. 03-cv-03374-SI, Dkt. No. 13.) His appeal of this denial was terminated 25 when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to issue a Certificate of Appealability. 26 (Id., Dkt. No. 18.) The present habeas petition challenges the same 2000 state court 27 judgment, pursuant to which he received a sentence of 31 years and four months, as the 1 A094129, A094477;

(Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2002).) 2 DISCUSSION 3 The instant petition is barred by the rule against filing a second or successive 4 petition. As noted, petitioner has filed at least one previous petition regarding the same 5 state court judgment challenged in the instant petition. In order to file a second or 6 successive petition, a petitioner must obtain an order from the Court of Appeals 7 authorizing the district court to consider the petition. See

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

U.S. 147, 153 (2007). Because petitioner has not shown he has received such 10 authorization, the instant petition must be dismissed as second or successive, the filing of 11 which has not been authorized by the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the petition is 12 DISMISSED. 13 CONCLUSION 14 The instant petition is DISMISSED as second or successive, the filing of which has 15 not been authorized by the Court of Appeals. A Certificate of Appealability will not issue. 16 Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition 17 states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 18 find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 19 McDaniel,

(2000). 20 Petitioner’s IFP application is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 14.) The Clerk shall 21 terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of respondent, and close the file. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: December _1_1_, 2024 _________________________ 24 RICHARD SEEBORG 25 Chief United States District Judge 26 27