Jesse Youngblood v. Superior Court of Butte Co.

610 F. App'x 664
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJuly 27, 2015
Docket13-17288
StatusUnpublished

This text of 610 F. App'x 664 (Jesse Youngblood v. Superior Court of Butte Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jesse Youngblood v. Superior Court of Butte Co., 610 F. App'x 664 (9th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Jesse L. Youngblood appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as second or successive. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, see Wentzell v. Neven, 674 F.3d 1124, 1126 (9th Cir.2012), and we affirm.

Youngblood contends that the district court should not have deemed his habeas petition second or successive under section 2244(b) because his first habeas petition was not decided on the merits but rather dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. As Youngblood concedes, this argument is foreclosed by McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir.2009). We are bound by that decision. See Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1171 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Once a panel resolves an issue in a precedential opinion, the matter is deemed resolved, unless overruled by the court itself sitting en banc, or by the Supreme Court.”).

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wentzell v. Neven
674 F.3d 1124 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
McNabb v. Yates
576 F.3d 1028 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
610 F. App'x 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jesse-youngblood-v-superior-court-of-butte-co-ca9-2015.