1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 MARCUS SHARIF MCNEAL, Case No.: 2:20-cv-00296-RFB-DJA

8 Petitioner ORDER 9 v.

10 JERRY HOWELL, et al.,

11 Respondents

12 13 Petitioner Marcus Sharif McNeal has submitted another petition for a writ of habeas 14 corpus (ECF No. 1-1). He has submitted an incomplete application to proceed in forma 15 pauperis; he has failed to include the authorized financial certificate or inmate account 16 statements. Thus, this action has not been properly commenced.

(a)(2) 17 and Local Rule LSR1-2. 18 Moreover, McNeal has already filed at least two habeas petitions that challenge 19 the same judgment of conviction—C-288873-1—in this court. (See case nos. 2:16-cv- 20 01618-JAD-GWF; 2:17-cv-2589-RFB-CWH). 21

(3)(A) provides: “[b]efore a second or successive application 22 permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the 23 appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the 1} application.” Where a petition has been dismissed with prejudice as untimely or becaus 2|| of procedural default, the dismissal constitutes a disposition on the merits and renders subsequent petition second or successive for purposes of

. McNabb v. Yates,

(9th Cir. 2009); Henderson v. Lampert,

] 1053 (9th Cir. 2005). 6 In fact, McNeal’s earlier-filed 2016 petition is currently pending before this cou (2:16-cv-01618-JAD-GWF). This petition, therefore, is duplicative and/or a second o 8|| successive habeas corpus petition. Henderson v. Lampert,

(9" Cir. 91}2005). Accordingly, this petition shall be dismissed as improperly commenced and 10]}second and successive. 11 Reasonable jurists would not find this conclusion to be debatable or wrong, and court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk shall DETACH and FILE the petition 14]| (ECF No. 1-1). 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED as improper commenced and a successive petition. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's application to proceed in form 19|| pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED as moot. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall ENTER JUDGMENT accordingl close this case. 22 DATED: 20 March 2020. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE