Case 2:21-cv-09937-JLS-E Document 4 Filed 02/10/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:46

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND EUGENE BOYKIN, Case No. CV 21-9937 JLS (E) 12 Petitioner,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

13 v. 14

RICK HILL,

15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner filed a “Petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 By a Person in State Custody” on December 22, 2021. The Petition seeks to 20 challenge a 2000 Los Angeles Superior Court criminal judgment. Petitioner 21 previously challenged this same Superior Court judgment in a prior habeas corpus 22 petition filed in this Court. See Boykins1 v. Runnels, CV 03-4384-VAP (JTL). On 23 September 23, 2004, this Court entered judgment in Boykins v. Runnels, CV 03- 24 4384-VAP (JTL), dismissing the prior petition on the merits with prejudice. 25 26

27 1 Although the spelling of Petitioner’s last name in the earlier case is slightly 28 different, the prisoner identification number (T-35823) is the same. Case 2:21-cv-09937-JLS-E Document 4 Filed 02/10/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:47

1 The Court must dismiss the present Petition in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2 section 2244(b) (as amended by the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 3 of 1996"). Section 2244(b) requires that a petitioner seeking to file a "second or 4 successive" habeas petition first obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals. 5 See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (where petitioner did not receive 6 authorization from Court of Appeals before filing second or successive petition, 7 "the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain [the petition]"); Barapind v. 8 Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1111 (9th Cir. 2000) ("the prior-appellate-review mechanism 9 set forth in § 2244(b) requires the permission of the court of appeals before 'a 10 second or successive habeas application under§ 2254' may be commenced"). A 11 petition need not be repetitive to be "second or successive," within the meaning of 12 28 U.S.C. section 2244 (b). See, e.g., Thompson v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 920-21 13 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 965 (1998); Calbert v. Marshall, 2008 WL 649798, 14 at *2-4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2008). Petitioner evidently has not yet obtained 15 authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.2 Consequently, this Court 16 cannot entertain the present Petition. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. at 157; see 17 also Remsen v. Att’y Gen. of Calif., 471 Fed. App’x 571, 571 (9th Cir. 2012) (if a 18 petitioner fails to obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals to file a second or 19 successive petition, “the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition and 20 should dismiss it.”) (citation omitted). 21 22 23 24

25 2 The Court takes judicial notice of the Ninth Circuit’s docket, available on the 26 PACER database at www.pacer.gov. See Mir v. Little Company of Mary Hosp., 844 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1988) (court may take judicial notice of court records). On 27 April 25, 2006, the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s request for authorization to file 28 a second or successive petition.

2 Case 2:21-cv-09937-JLS-E Document 4 Filed 02/10/22 Page 3of3 Page ID #:48

1 For all of the foregoing reasons, the Petition is denied and dismissed without 2 || prejudice. 4 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. ° DATED: February 10, 2022 = 9 JOSEPHINE If. STATON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10 11 | PRESENTED THIS 28" day of 12 || December, 2021, by: 13 va /s/ Charles F. Eick

15 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28