Holloway v. Gonzales

Opinion

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-12152-SB-DSR Date: April 21, 2026 Title Holloway v. Gonzales

Present: The Honorable: Daniel S. Roberts, United States Magistrate Judge

L. Krivitsky n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s): Defendant(s)/Respondent(s):

None present None present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL OF PETITION

Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the Court conducted a preliminary review of the Petition in this state habeas action. Petitioner filed this habeas action on December 8, 2025. Doc. No. 1. According to the Petition, Petitioner was convicted of First-Degree Murder (Pen. Code § 187(a)), Second-Degree Robbery (Pen. Code §§ 211, 213(2)), and the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony (Pen. Code § 12022.5(a)), and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (Pen. Code § 190.2). Doc. No. 1 at 2. The pending petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Under AEDPA, state habeas petitioners generally may only file one federal habeas petition challenging a particular state conviction and/or sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (absent certain exceptions, courts must dismiss a claim presented in a second or successive petition when that claim was not presented in a prior petition); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (before a petitioner may file a successive petition in district court, they must obtain authorization from the appropriate court of appeals permitting the district court to consider the petition); Allen v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 958 (9th Cir. 2006) (dismissing a claim as second or successive because the claim could have been brought in a previous habeas petition). CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-12152-SB-DSR Date: April 21, 2026 Title Holloway v. Gonzales

The instant Petition appears to be defective as an unauthorized second or successive petition, which challenges the same state court judgment or conviction that Petitioner challenged in a previous federal habeas petition, which was denied with prejudice as untimely. See Holloway v. Garcia, 2:00-cv-03289-DDP-RNB (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2000), affirmed by, Holloway v. Garcia, 36 F.App’x 620 (9th Cir. 2002). Petitioner does not allege that he sought or obtained permission from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive federal habeas petition as required by 28 U.S.C. Section 2244(b). See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007) (dismissing successive petition for failure to obtain authorization from court of appeals). Accordingly, the current Petition appears to be subject to summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court therefore ORDERS Petitioner to file a memorandum, not to exceed 10 pages, no later than three weeks from the date of issuance of this Order showing good cause why this Court should not dismiss the current petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). Petitioner is admonished that the failure to file a timely response to this Order as directed above will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive petition, as well as for failure to prosecute and obey Court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

: Initials of Preparer LK