1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 LONNIE LEE POSLOF, JR., Case No. 1:25-cv-01573-SKO (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 14 SIRCOYA M. WILLIAMS, DISMISS SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 15 Respondent. [21-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to

. He filed the instant petition in the United States District Court for 19 the Northern District of California on August 19, 2025. The petition challenges a 2017 20 conviction in Merced County Superior Court for oral copulation with a minor (count 1) and lewd 21 act on a child (count 2). 22 The Court hereby takes judicial notice of Petitioner’s prior petition challenging the same 23 conviction in Poslof v. Attchley, Case No. 1:21-cv-00339-JLT-HBK (HC).1 The Court denied 24 the petition in that action on the merits on June 18, 2025.

(Doc. 53.) Because the instant 25 petition is successive, the Court will recommend it be DISMISSED. 26 27 1 See United States v. Wilson,

(9th Cir. 1980) (stating that a court may take judicial 1 DISCUSSION 2 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 3 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it 4 plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the 5 Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez,

(9th Cir. 6 1990). A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it 7 appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 8

(9th Cir. 1971). 9 A federal court must dismiss a second or successive petition that raises the same grounds 10 as a prior petition.

(b)(1). The court must also dismiss a second or successive 11 petition raising a new ground unless the petitioner can show that 1) the claim rests on a new, 12 retroactive, constitutional right or 2) the factual basis of the claim was not previously 13 discoverable through due diligence, and these new facts establish by clear and convincing 14 evidence that but for the constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the 15 applicant guilty of the underlying offense.

(b)(2)(A)-(B). However, it is not the 16 district court that decides whether a second or successive petition meets these requirements. 17 Section 2244 (b)(3)(A) provides: "Before a second or successive application permitted by 18 this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of 19 appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." In other words, 20 Petitioner must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before he can file a second or successive 21 petition in district court. See Felker v. Turpin,

(1996). This Court must 22 dismiss any second or successive petition unless the Court of Appeals has given Petitioner leave 23 to file the petition because a district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a second or 24 successive petition. Burton v. Stewart,

(2007); Cooper v. Calderon,

(9th Cir. 2001). 26 As noted above, Petitioner challenges his 2017 conviction in the Merced County Superior 27 Court for oral copulation with a minor and lewd act on a child. Petitioner previously sought and 1 Attchley, Case No. 1:21-cv-00339-JLT-HBK (HC). 2 The Court finds that the instant petition is “second or successive” under

2244(b). Petitioner makes no showing that he has obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to 4 file his successive petition. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s 5 renewed application for relief under

and must dismiss the petition. See Burton, 6

. 7 ORDER 8 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District Judge to this case. 9 RECOMMENDATION 10 For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition be 11 DISMISSED as successive. 12 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 13 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 14 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 15 Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and 16 Recommendation, a party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all 17 parties.

The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 18 Recommendation” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good 19 cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a 20 party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its 21 CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with 22 specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by 23 the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations pursuant to

636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 25 may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th 26 Cir. 2014). This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 27 ///// 1 Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of 2 Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

5 Dated: November 18, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27