Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in a state prisoner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas action. The court denied the petitioner’s request to transfer the matter to the Ninth Circuit for authorization to file a successive petition and dismissed the action without prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court should transfer the petition to the Ninth Circuit for consideration as a request for authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition.
- Whether the petition should be dismissed without prejudice instead of transferred.
- Whether to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
Holdings
- The district court has discretion either to transfer a successive habeas petition to the court of appeals or to dismiss it, and the court exercised that discretion to deny Petitioner's request for transfer because two habeas petitions were pending in the district.
- The petition was dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner seeking authorization from the Ninth Circuit.
- The court declined to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
Key quotations
“The district court has discretion either to transfer a successive petition to the Court of Appeals or to dismiss the petition.” (1)
Factual background
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He had two habeas petitions pending in the Eastern District of California and requested that the present petition and an earlier petition be transferred to the Ninth Circuit for consideration as a request for authorization to file a second or successive petition.
Procedural history
The matter was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued findings and recommendations on March 13, 2025. Petitioner filed no objections and instead sought transfer of this case and an earlier habeas case to the Ninth Circuit. The district court adopted the findings and recommendations, denied transfer, dismissed the action without prejudice, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and directed the clerk to close the case.