Hatchett v. Clark

Summary

The court recommends denying the petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for release on bail. It further recommends dismissing the habeas petition without leave to amend because it is successive and requires prior authorization from the Ninth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).

Holdings

1. Claims previously presented in a federal habeas petition constitute a successive petition, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider them unless the petitioner first obtains authorization from the Ninth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).
2. The application to proceed in forma pauperis must be denied when the petitioner fails to provide a certified copy of the inmate trust account statement for the six-month period preceding filing.
3. The motion for release on bail should be denied because the court lacked jurisdiction over the successive habeas petition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court had jurisdiction to consider claims previously presented in a federal habeas petition without prior authorization from the Ninth Circuit.
2. Whether petitioner satisfied the statutory requirements to proceed in forma pauperis.
3. Whether petitioner was entitled to release on bail while litigating the habeas petition.

Disposition

dismissed