1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 JOVENCIO DELA CALZADA, Case No. 23-cv-06465-WHO (PR)

Petitioner, 5 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 6

7 PATRICK COVELLO, Dkt. No. 4 Respondent. 8

9 10 INTRODUCTION 11 Petitioner Jovencio Dela Calzada has filed a habeas petition under

12 in which he challenges the same state court judgment that he challenged in two prior 13 habeas actions filed in this district, Dela Calzada v. Gipson, No. 14-cv-00103 WHO and 14 Dela Calzada v. Covello, 23-cv-00030-WHO. The pending petition will be dismissed as 15 second or successive to the prior petitions. 16 Dela Calzada’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) is DENIED as moot 17 because he has paid the filing fee. (Dkt. Nos. 3 and 4.) 18 BACKGROUND 19 The first habeas petition was denied on the merits. (Dela Calzada, No. 14-cv- 20 00103, Dkt. No. 19.) Dela Calzada appealed, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 21 denied his request for a certificate of appealability. (Id., Dkt. No. 33.) The second petition 22 was dismissed as second or successive. (Dela Calzada, 23-cv-00030, Dkt. No. 4.) Dela 23 Calzada did not appeal that dismissal. 24 The prior and pending petitions are challenges to the 2011 California state 25 convictions and sentence Dela Calzada received in the Contra Costa Superior Court for 26 committing multiple sexual offenses against two of his stepdaughters, for which he 27 received a sentence of 173 years to life in state prison. (Id., Order of Dismissal, Dkt. No. 4 1 || People v. Dela Calzada, No. A133098,

(Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2012) 2 || (unpublished).) 3 DISCUSSION 4 The pending petition is barred by the rule against filing a second or successive 5 || petition. As noted, Dela Calzada has filed at least two previous federal petitions regarding 6 || the same state court judgment challenged in the pending petition. In order to file a second 7 || or successive petition, Dela Calzada must obtain an order from the Ninth Circuit Court of 8 || Appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition. See

(b) 9 (3)(A). Without such authorization, a district court lacks jurisdiction over the petition. 10 || Burton v. Stewart,

(2007). Because Dela Calzada has not shown that he 11 || has received such authorization from the federal appellate court, the pending petition must 2 be dismissed as second or successive, the filing of which has not been authorized by the 5 13 || Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED. S 14 CONCLUSION 3 15 The pending petition is DISMISSED as second or successive, the filing of which a 16 || has not been authorized by the Court of Appeals. 3 17 A certificate of appealability will not issue. Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of 18 || reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 19 || constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district 20 || court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). 21 The filing fee has been paid. (Dkt. No. 3.) Dela Calzada’s motion to proceed IFP 22 || is therefore DENIED as moot. (Dkt. No. 4.) The Clerk shall terminate all pending 23 || motions, enter judgment in favor of respondent, and close the file. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: January 3, 2024 ( . MQe 26 ILLIAM H. ORRICK 27 United States District Judge 28