Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Carlos Galindo Flores’s habeas petition challenging his 1993 conviction and sentence. The court held that the petition was second or successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and that Flores had not obtained authorization from the Ninth Circuit, so the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it.
Holdings
- A petitioner must obtain authorization from the court of appeals before filing a second or successive habeas petition, and absent that authorization the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition.
- A habeas petition need not be repetitive to qualify as second or successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court could entertain a habeas petition challenging a conviction and sentence previously challenged in federal court when the petitioner had not obtained authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive petition.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (7)
- Flores v. White, 182 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 1999); 1999 WL 313642(followed)
- Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007)(followed)
- Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1111 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Thompson v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 920-21 (9th Cir.)(followed)
- Calbert v. Marshall, 2008 WL 649798, at *2-4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2008)(followed)
- Remsen v. Att’y Gen. of Calif., 471 Fed. App’x 571, 571 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
- Mir v. Little Company of Mary Hosp., 844 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…