Natalie Elizabeth Garcia v. Molly Hill, Warden

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: November 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-04897
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATALIE ELIZABETH Case No. CV 24-4897-DMG (E) GARCIA, 12 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 13 v. 14 MOLLY HILL, Warden, 15 16 Respondent. 17 18 Petitioner filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State 19 Custody” on June 6, 2024. The Petition challenges the 2010 criminal judgment in 20 Superior Court Case No. PA 063463 (Petition at 2). Petitioner previously 21 challenged this same judgment in a prior habeas corpus petition filed in this Court. 22 See Garcia v. Johnson, CV 12-680-DMG(JEM). On January 3, 2013, this Court 23 entered judgment in Garcia v. Johnson, CV 12-680-DMG(JEM), denying and 24 dismissing the prior petition with prejudice. 25 The Court must dismiss the present Petition in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 26 section 2244(b) (as amended by the “Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 27 of 1996”). Section 2244(b) requires that a petitioner seeking to file a “second or 28 successive” habeas petition first obtain authorization from the court of appeals. See 1 || Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (where petitioner did not receive 2 || authorization from Court of Appeal before filing second or successive petition, “the 3 || District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain [the petition]’”’); Barapind v. 4 || Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1111 (9th Cir. 2000) (“the prior-appellate-review mechanism 5 || set forth in § 2244(b) requires the permission of the court of appeals before ‘a 6 || second or successive habeas application under § 2254’ may be commenced”). A 7 || petition need not be repetitive to be “second or successive,” within the meaning of 8 || 28 U.S.C. section 2244(b). See, e.g., Thompson v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 920-21 9 |) (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 965 (1998); Calbert v. Marshall, 2008 WL 10 || 649798, at *2-4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2008). Petitioner evidently has not yet obtained 11 |) authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Consequently, this Court 12 || cannot entertain the present Petition. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. at 157.! 13 For all of the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DENIED and dismissed 14 || without prejudice. 15 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 16 17 || DATED: November 4, 2025 ? 18 = DOLLY M. GEE 19 CHIEF UNITED ST‘ TES “ISTRI“T ™ DGE 20 || PRESENTED this 20th day of 21 |) June, 2024, by: 22

CHARLES F. EICK 24 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25

1 This Court rebuffed a previous attempt by Petitioner to bring a “second or 27 || successive” habeas petition challenging the judgment in Superior Court Case No. PA 2g || 063463. See Minute Order, filed January 29, 2024, in Garcia v. Johnson, CV 12- 680-DMG (JEM).