Kevin Eddis Moore v. Gigi Matteson

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 16, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-04516
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-04516-JGB (DFM) Date: July 16, 2020 Title Kevin Eddis Moore v. Gigi Matteson

Present: The Honorable Douglas F. McCormick, United States Magistrate Judge | Nancy Boehme Not Present | Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorney(s) for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) for Defendant(s): Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD uuu... NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On May 19, 2020, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In State Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Dkt. 1. On June 2, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response to the Petition. See Dkt. 4. On July 9, Respondent moved to vacate the order, arguing that Petitioner’s failure to obtain authorization to file the instant second or successive Petition deprives the Court of jurisdiction. See Dkt. 9. Respondent notes that Petitioner has filed several habeas corpus petitions in federal court, all of which were dismissed either on the merits or as second or successive. See id. at 3. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) “creates a ‘gatekeeping’ mechanism for the consideration of second or successive applications in district court.” Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657, (1996). Under this procedure, “[a]n individual seeking to file a ‘second or successive’ application must move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order directing the district court to consider his application.” Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 641 (1998). Thereafter, the appellate court “may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of” AEDPA. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C). Having reviewed the Petition and the prior filings, it appears that the Petition is second or successive. Nevertheless, the Court will afford Petitioner the opportunity to respond. Petitioner is thus ORDERED to show cause in writing within twenty-eight (28) days of this order why the Court should not dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner is warned that failure to respond will likely result in dismissal. (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk: nb Page 1 of 1