1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 VINCENT ANTHONY CALLENDER, ) CASE NO. CV 19-8720-DMG (PJW) ) 11 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER DISMISSING SECOND OR 12 v. ) SUCCESSIVE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION ) AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 13 WARDEN OF CSATF, ) APPEALABILITY ) 14 Respondent. ) ) 15 16 Before the Court is Petitioner’s second attempt to challenge his 17 April 2006 state conviction and subsequent sentence. The Court 18 dismissed his first petition in 2014 as untimely. (Callender v. 19 Knipp, CV 12-7481-DMG (PJW), January 30, 2014 Order.) Petitioner 20 attempted to appeal the Court’s ruling, but his application for a 21 certificate of appealability was denied. (Callender v. Knipp, CCA No. 22 14-55343, September 26, 2014 Order.) 23 A petition that is dismissed for untimeliness “presents a 24 ‘permanent and incurable’ bar to federal review of the underlying 25 claims” and renders a subsequent petition second or successive. 26 McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009). Absent an order 27 from the Ninth Circuit, Petitioner may not bring a habeas petition 28 challenging his April 2006 conviction in this court. See 28 U.S.C. 2244; see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (holding 2 || district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of a second 3 || or successive petition absent prior authorization from the circuit 4 court). 5 Further, because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of 6 || the denial of a constitutional right or that the court erred in its 7 || ruling, Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)i Fed. R. App. P. 22(b);i Miller-El v. 9 Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003)? Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 10 |} 484 (2000). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || DATED: November 13, 2019

. 14 DOLLY M EE

UNITED ATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 |} Presented by: 25 Jee , 26 eS

PATRICK J. WALSH

27 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 |] 0:\ECF Ready\LA19CV08720DMG(PJW)_Callender_ord.wpd