1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 || JUAN CARRANZA, Case No. 2:20-04118 CAS (ADS) 11 Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND OR

12 V. SUCCESSIVE FEDERAL HABEAS

PETITION AND DENYING

13 || RICK HILL, Warden, CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABLITY 14 Respondent. 15 Before the Court is Petitioner Juan Carranza’s third attempt to challenge his 16 || 2005 state conviction and sentence through a federal habeas petition. [Dkt. No. 1]. The 17 |! Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s two applications for authorization to 18 || file a second or successive federal habeas petition. As a result, this Court lacks 19 || jurisdiction. The petition must be dismissed. 20 RELEVANT PRIOR PROCEEDINGS 21 In 2005, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder in violation of California 22 || Penal Code § 187 and sentenced to a term of fifty years to life in custody, Los Angeles 23 24

1 Superior Court Case No. BA258968. [Dkt. No. 1, p. 2].1 On direct review, the California 2 Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, Case No. B186616, and the California Supreme 3 Court summarily denied review, Case No. S146490. See California Appellate Courts 4 Case Information 2nd Appellate District, http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov, (Trial 5 Court case number BA258968).2 Subsequently, Petitioner filed at least five separate

6 state petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the state courts. See id. (listing Case 7 Nos. B210244, B266517, B268760, B291418, and B304552). The state courts denied 8 each of Petitioner’s state habeas petitions. See id. 9 On September 9, 2010, Petitioner constructively filed a federal petition for writ of 10 habeas corpus in this Court (“2010 Petition”). Carranza v. McEwen, Case No. 2:10- 11 06772 CAS (VBK), [Dkt. No. 1]. On August 12, 2011, the Court found that Petitioner’s 12 grounds for relief were untimely and unexhausted, dismissed the 2010 Petition with 13 prejudice, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Id., [Dkt. No. 18]. 14 Thereafter, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s Application for 15 Certificate of Appealability. Id., [Dkt. No. 24]. 16 On January 3, 2019, Petitioner filed a second federal petition for writ of habeas

17 corpus in this Court (“2019 Petition”). Carranza v. Hill, Case No. 2:19-00037 CAS 18 19 1 All citations to electronically-filed documents refer to the CM/ECF pagination 20 2 Where necessary, the Court takes judicial notice of the public records. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable 21 dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 11 22 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[A] court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as well as the records of an inferior court in other cases.”); Harris v. Cty. of Orange, 682 23 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that a court may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record). 24 1 (ADS), [Dkt. No. 1]. On March 26, 2019, this Court dismissed the 2019 Petition as a 2 second or successive federal habeas petition, without prejudice to filing a new action if 3 Petitioner obtained permission to file a successive petition. Id., [Dkt. No. 5]. On 4 January 24, 2020, the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s request for a certificate of 5 appealability. Id., [Dkt. No. 14].

6 On July 5, 2019, Petitioner filed an Application for Leave to File a Second or 7 Successive Petition with the Ninth Circuit. Carranza v. Hill, Case No. 19-71695 (9th 8 Cir.), [Dkt. No. 1]. On August 22, 2019, the Ninth Circuit denied the Application, ruling, 9 “The applicant has not made a prima facie showing under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) . . . . 10 Any pending motions are denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this 11 case.” Id., [Dkt. No. 3]. 12 On February 14, 2020, Petitioner filed a second Application for Leave to File a 13 Second or Successive Petition with the Ninth Circuit. Carranza v. Hill, Case No. 20- 14 70406 (9th Cir.), [Dkt. No. 1]. On March 9, 2020, the Ninth Circuit denied that 15 application for the same reason. Id., [Dkt. No. 2]. 16 II. THE PETITION IS DISMISSED AS SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE

17 A district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of a second or successive 18 petition absent prior authorization from the Circuit court. Burton v. Stewart, 549 19 U.S. 147, 152-53, 157 (2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir., 2001), 20 cert. denied, 538 U.S. 984 (2003). Before a second or successive petition may be filed, 21 the petitioner must first obtain the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ authorization. See 22 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 23 Petitioner is challenging the same 2005 first-degree murder conviction and 24 sentence as the previous 2010 and 2019 Petitions. Compare [Dkt. No. 1, p. 2] with 1 || Carranza v. McEwen, Case No. 2:10-6772 CAS (VBK), [Dkt. No. 1, p. 3], and Carranza v. 2 || Hill, Case No. 2:19-00037 CAS (ADS), [Dkt. No. 1, p. 2]. The 2010 Petition was 3 || dismissed with prejudice as untimely and unexhausted. Carranza v. McEwen, Case 4 || No. 2:10-06772 CAS (VBK), [Dkt. No. 18]. That dismissal with prejudice constituted a 5 || decision on the merits and renders subsequent petitions successive under AEDPA. 6 || See McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 2009). Petitioner has submitted 7 || acopy of the exact same petition he filed in 2019, which was dismissed as successive 8 || under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s two applications to 9 || obtain authorization to file a second or successive federal habeas petition. As such, this 10 || Court does not have jurisdiction to review the instant petition. Accordingly, the petition 11 || is dismissed without prejudice. 12 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 13 The Court further finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the 14 || denial of a constitutional right or that the Court erred in its procedural ruling and, 15 || therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue in this action. See 28 U.S.C. 16 || § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); 17 || Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 ||Dated: May 12, 2020 _

THE HONORABLE CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

21 United States District Judge 22 || Presented by: 23 ||____/s/ Autumn D. Spaeth

THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH

24 || United States Magistrate Judge