22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4d8,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Johnney Ra-mey appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we vacate and remand. The state argues several alternative bases for affirmance, including that the petition was an unauthorized second or successive petition within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b). When Ramey filed his first section 2254 petition, in September 1998, he was in custody pursuant to the state court’s July 1998 amended judgment, which is the very judgment that he seeks to challenge in the instant petition. Ra-mey did not seek authorization prior to filing his petition in this case, and neither his petition nor his brief on appeal makes a prima facie showing of his entitlement to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b). Accordingly, the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the petition. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 156-57 , 127 S.Ct. 798 , 166 L.Ed.2d 628 (2007). We vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. VACATED and REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T505,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Johnney Ra-mey appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we vacate and remand.

The state argues several alternative bases for affirmance, including that the petition was an unauthorized second or successive petition within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b). When Ramey filed his first section 2254 petition, in September 1998, he was in custody pursuant to the state court’s July 1998 amended judgment, which is the very judgment that he seeks to challenge in the instant petition. Ra-mey did not seek authorization prior to filing his petition in this case, and neither his petition nor his brief on appeal makes a prima facie showing of his entitlement to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b). Accordingly, the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the petition. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 156-57 , 127 S.Ct. 798 , 166 L.Ed.2d 628 (2007). We vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

VACATED and REMANDED.

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