1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDEN WILLIE ISELI, Case No. 2:25-cv-0532-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WILLIAM D. JOHNSON, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action under

. ECF No. 1. It 18 appears that this petition is successive and unauthorized. Petitioner appears to concede that his 19 petition is an unauthorized successive petition, as he also moves this court to transfer his case to 20 the Court of Appeals to obtain authorization for a successive petition. ECF No. 8. I will 21 recommend that that petitioner’s motion to transfer be granted, and that the Clerk of Court be 22 directed to administratively close the case. I will grant petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma 23 pauperis. ECF No. 2. 24 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 25 Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 26 the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 27 petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery,

(9th Cir. 2019); 28 Boyd v. Thompson,

(9th Cir. 1998). 1 Petitioner filed this petition challenging convictions for attempted murder with 2 premeditation and first-degree murder handed down in San Joaquin County Superior Court. ECF 3 No. 1 at 2. These convictions were previously challenged in a federal habeas petition filed on 4 August 22, 2022, which was denied on the merits. See Iseli v. People of the State of California, 5 No. 2:22-cv-1483-TLN-EFB, ECF Nos. 1, 23, & 31. Accordingly, the instant petition is 6 successive. See Cooper v. Calderon,

(9th Cir. 2001) (“Generally, a new 7 petition is ‘second or successive’ if it raises claims that were or could have been adjudicated on 8 their merits in an earlier petition.”). Under

(b)(3)(A), a petitioner may not bring 9 a second or successive habeas petition seeking the same, previously denied relief unless he 10 obtains proper authorization from the Court of Appeals.

(“Before a second or successive 11 application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the 12 appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the 13 application.”). The current petition does not indicate that such authorization has been obtained. 14 In fact, petitioner concedes this action is an unauthorized successive petition, and he 15 moves this court to transfer his case to the Court of Appeals so that he may obtain authorization. 16 ECF No. 8. Under Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3, “[i]f an application for authorization to file a second 17 or successive section 2254 petition . . . is mistakenly submitted to the district court, the district 18 court shall refer it to the court of appeals.” Cir. R. 22-3(a). As such, I recommend that 19 petitioner’s § 2254 petition be transferred to the Court of Appeals in accordance with court rules, 20 and that the Clerk of Court administratively close this case. 21 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 22 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 23 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action. 24 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 25 1. Petitioner’s motion to transfer his case to the Ninth Circuit for permission to file a 26 second or successive § 2254 petition, ECF No. 8, be GRANTED. The Clerk of Court be directed 27 to transfer this action to the Court of Appeals. 28 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to administratively close the case. 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 3 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 4 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 5 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 6 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 7 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 8 || Turner v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 9 | 1991). 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ( ie — Dated: _ April 21, 2025 Q——— 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28