Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Raymond Glen Berry’s successive habeas corpus petition challenging his Los Angeles Superior Court conviction and sentence. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction because Berry had not obtained authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). The petition was denied and dismissed without prejudice.
Holdings
- A habeas petition challenging the same state conviction and sentence previously challenged in an earlier federal habeas petition is a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), even if the new petition is not repetitive in its claims.
- A district court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a second or successive habeas petition under § 2254 when the petitioner has not first obtained authorization from the court of appeals.
Questions Presented
- Whether the present habeas petition was a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
- Whether the district court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition absent prior authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (8)
- Berry v. Davey, No. CV 17-3680-GW(E)(followed)
- Thompson v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 920-21 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 965 (1998)(followed)
- Calbert v. Marshall, 2008 WL 649798, at *2-4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2008)(followed)
- Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. at 157(followed)
- Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1111 (9th Cir. 2000)(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)
- Berry v. Johnson, No. CV 20-6863-GW(E)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…