1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FREDDIE GEORGE SANCHEZ, Case No. 2:24-cv-11092-AB-RAO

12 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING 13 v. SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF 14 STEPHEN SMITH, Warden, JURISDICTION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 On December 23, 2024, Petitioner Freddie George Sanchez filed a Petition for 19 Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”) pursuant to 28

. Dkt. No. 1 (“Pet.”). Petitioner seeks habeas relief from his current 21 custody status arising from his 2012 conviction in Los Angeles County Superior 22 Court bearing case number BA367914-02. Pet. at 2. 23 The records of this Court show that the Petitioner previously filed a habeas 24 action concerning the same 2012 conviction and sentence. See Sanchez v. Holland, 25 No. 2:15-cv-04851-AB-RAO (C.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2017).1 In Petitioner’s prior habeas 26 27 1 The Court takes judicial notice of the court records and files as well as those of the 28 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as necessary herein. See Fed. R. Evid. 1 action concerning his 2012 conviction and sentence, the Court denied with prejudice 2 the operative petition on the merits. Order Accepting Findings, Conclusions, and 3 Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge, Sanchez v. Holland, No. 2:15- 4 cv-04851-AB-RAO (C.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2017), ECF No. 46; Judgment, Sanchez v. 5 Holland, No. 2:15-cv-04851-AB-RAO (C.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2017), ECF No. 47. 6 A review of the instant Petition demonstrates that Petitioner again seeks federal 7 habeas relief concerning the same 2012 conviction and sentence. Pet. at 2. Neither 8 the Petition itself nor the records of the Ninth Circuit establish that the Ninth Circuit 9 has authorized Petitioner to bring a successive petition in this Court. 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 The United States Supreme Court has explained: 12 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) established a stringent set of procedures that a 13 prisoner “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State 14 court,”

(a), must follow if he wishes to file a “second or successive” habeas corpus application 15 challenging that custody, § 2244(b)(1). In pertinent part, 16 before filing the application in the district court, a prisoner “shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order 17 authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 18 § 2244(b)(3)(A). A three-judge panel of the court of appeals may authorize the filing of the second or successive 19 application only if it presents a claim not previously raised 20 that satisfies one of the two grounds articulated in § 2244(b)(2). 21 Burton v. Stewart,

, 152–53 (2007) (citing

(b)(3)(C); 22 Gonzalez v. Crosby,

, 529–30 (2005); Felker v. Turpin,

, 23 656–57, 664 (1996)). 24 The Court finds that Petitioner’s present Petition is clearly a “second or 25 successive” habeas petition. McNabb v. Yates,

(9th Cir. 2009) 26 27 201(b)(2); Harris v. County of Orange,

, 1131–32 (9th Cir. 2012); 28 United States v. Wilson,

(9th Cir. 1980). 1 (“[D]ismissal of a section 2254 habeas petition for failure to comply with the statute 2 of limitations renders subsequent petitions second or successive for purposes of 3 AEDPA.” (citation omitted)). Moreover, the Petition and records of the Ninth Circuit 4 establish that Petitioner has not sought, and been granted, authorization by the Ninth 5 Circuit to file a successive petition to raise his claims. 6 For these reasons, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the 7 Petition. Therefore, the reference to the Magistrate Judge is vacated and the Petition 8 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Burton, 549 U.S. at 152–53. All pending 9 motions are denied as moot. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the 10 Petition. 11 III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 12 Under AEDPA, a state prisoner seeking to appeal a district court’s final order 13 in a habeas corpus proceeding must obtain a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) 14 from the district judge or a circuit judge.

(c)(1)(A). A COA may 15 issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 16 constitutional right.”

(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by 17 demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution 18 of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are 19 adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

, 327 (2003). 21 When the Court dismisses a petition on procedural grounds, it must issue a 22 COA if the petitioner shows: (1) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable 23 whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right”; and 24 (2) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 25 correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). 26 Here, the Court is dismissing the Petition without prejudice because it is a 27 successive petition without proper authorization from the Ninth Circuit. Since the 28 Petition is patently a successive petition, Petitioner cannot make the requisite 1 || showing that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 2 || correct in its procedural ruling. 3 ITV. ORDER 4 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 5 1. The Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; and 6 2. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. 7 8 || DATED: May 12, 2025 L5— 9 ; ANDRE BIROTTE JR. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28