Zuri Sana-Kabisa Young v. R.L. Johnson

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 16, 2023
• Docket: 5:23-cv-00436
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 5:23-cv-00436-ODW-E Document 6 Filed 03/16/23 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZURI SANA-KABISA YOUNG, ) NO. ED CV 23-436-ODW(E) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) 13 v. ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL ) 14 R. L. JOHNSON, CDCR, ET AL., ) ) 15 ) Respondents. ) 16 ______________________________) 17 18 On March 13, 2023, Petition filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus by a Person in State Custody.” The Petition challenges a 1998 20 San Bernardino Superior Court criminal judgment (Petition at 2). 21 Petitioner previously challenged this same Superior Court criminal 22 judgment in a federal habeas petition, which was filed in 2001 and 23 denied with prejudice in the same year. See Young v. Terhune, ED CV 24 01-474-GLT(E). 25 26 The Court must dismiss the present Petition in accordance with 28 27 U.S.C. section 2244(b). Section 2244(b) requires that a petitioner 28 seeking to file a “second or successive” habeas petition first obtain Case 5:23-cv-00436-ODW-E Document 6 Filed 03/16/23 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:39

1 authorization from the court of appeals. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 2 U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (where the petitioner did not receive 3 authorization from the Court of Appeals before filing second or 4 successive petition, “the District Court was without jurisdiction to 5 entertain [the petition]”); Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1111 (9th 6 Cir. 2000) (“the prior-appellate-review mechanism set forth in 7 § 2244(b) requires the permission of the court of appeals before ‘a 8 second or successive habeas application under § 2254’ may be 9 commenced”); see also Rule 9 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in 10 the United States District Courts. A petition need not be repetitive 11 to be “second or successive,” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. section 12 2244(b). See, e.g., Thompson v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 920-21 (9th 13 Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 965 (1998); Calbert v. Marshall, 2008 WL 14 649798, at *2-4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2008). Petitioner evidently has 15 not yet obtained authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of 16 Appeals.1 Consequently, this Court cannot entertain the present 17 Petition. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. at 157; see also Dews v. 18 Curry, 2008 WL 590476, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2008) (without Court 19 of Appeals’ authorization, “this court lacks jurisdiction to consider 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 25 1 According to the docket of the United States Court of 26 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, available on the PACER database, no individual named Zuri Young has obtained an order from the 27 Ninth Circuit permitting the filing of a successive habeas petition in this Court. See Mir v. Little Company of Mary Hosp., 28 844 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1988) (court may take judicial notice of court records). 2 Case 5:23-cv-00436-ODW-E Document □ Filed 03/16/23 Page 3 o0f3 Page ID #:40

1| the petition”) .’ 3 For the reasons discussed above, the Petition is denied and 4] dismissed without prejudice. 6 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 7 NN 8 DATED: March 16, 2023. yt 10 OTIS D. WRIGHT II 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13] PRESENTED this 15th day 14] of March, 2023, by: 15 16 [sf CHARLES F. EICK 17] UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 5 This Court has rebuffed several previous attempts by 27| Petitioner to bring a “second or successive” habeas petition challenging his 1998 conviction and/or sentence. See Young v. 28 State of California, ED CV 11-566-AHM(E); Young v. Horel, ED CV 08-454-AHM(E); Young v. Harrison, CV 04-9884-AHM(E).