1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN KEITH LAWS, ) NO. CV 20-9202-FMO(E) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) 13 v. ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL ) 14 W.J. SULLIVAN (Warden), ) et al., ) 15 ) Respondents. ) 16 ______________________________) 17 18 Petitioner filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a 19 Person in State Custody” on October 6, 2020. The Petition seeks to 20 challenge a 1993 Los Angeles Superior Court criminal judgment 21 (Petition, p. 2). 22 23 Petitioner previously challenged this same Superior Court 24 judgment in a prior habeas corpus petition filed in this Court. See 25 Laws v. Lamarque, CV 02-1032-RSWL(PJW). On April 18, 2005, this Court 26 entered Judgment in Laws v. Lamarque, CV 02-1032-RSWL(PJW), denying 27 and dismissing the prior petition on the merits with prejudice. 28 /// 1 The Court must dismiss the present Petition in accordance with 2 28 U.S.C. section 2244(b) (as amended by the “Antiterrorism and 3 Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996”). Section 2244(b) requires that 4 a petitioner seeking to file a “second or successive” habeas petition 5 first obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals. See Burton v. 6 Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (where petitioner did not receive 7 authorization from Court of Appeals before filing second or successive 8 petition, “the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain 9 [the petition]”); Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1111 (9th Cir. 10 2000) (“the prior-appellate-review mechanism set forth in § 2244(b) 11 requires the permission of the court of appeals before ‘a second or 12 successive habeas application under § 2254’ may be commenced”). A 13 petition need not be repetitive to be “second or successive,” within 14 the meaning of 28 U.S.C. section 2244(b). See, e.g., Thompson v. 15 Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 920-21 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 965 16 (1998); Calbert v. Marshall, 2008 WL 649798, at *2-4 (C.D. Cal. 17 Mar. 6, 2008). The dismissal of a habeas petition as untimely 18 “constitutes an adjudication on the merits that renders future 19 petitions under § 2254 challenging the same conviction ‘second or 20 successive’ petitions under § 2244(b).” McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 21 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009). Petitioner evidently has not yet obtained 22 authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Consequently, 23 this Court cannot entertain the present Petition. See Burton v. 24 Stewart, 549 U.S. at 157; see also Remsen v. Att’y Gen. of Calif., 471 25 Fed. App’x 571, 571 (9th Cir. 2012) (if a petitioner fails to obtain 26 authorization from the Court of Appeals to file a second or successive 27 petition, “the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the 28 /// 1 petition and should dismiss it.”) (citation omitted).1 2 3 Petitioner’s attempt to focus on the California Supreme Court’s 4 denial of a 2020 collateral challenge to the 1993 Superior Court 5 judgment does not avoid the “second or successive” bar. At base, 6 Petitioner still seeks to avoid the consequences of the Superior Court 7 sentence he is being compelled to serve. Moreover,“federal habeas 8 relief is not available to address alleged procedural errors in state 9 post-conviction proceedings.” Ortiz v. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923, 939 10 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1123 (1999); see Franzen v. 11 Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1012 12 (1989) (holding that allegations of error in state’s post-conviction 13 review are not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings); cf. 28 14 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (limiting federal habeas corpus relief to cases in 15 which there has been a “violation of the Constitution or laws or 16 treaties of the United States”). 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 For all of the foregoing reasons, the Petition is denied and 26 27 1 This Court rebuffed two previous attempts by Petitioner to bring a “second or successive” petition challenging the 1993 28 Superior Court judgment. See Laws v. Soto, CV 13-2228-SJO(PJW); 1 dismissed without prejudice. 2 3 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 4 5 DATED: October 13, 2020. 6 7 8 _____________/_s_/____________________

FERNANDO M. OLGUIN

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 PRESENTED this 8th day of 12 October, 2020, by: 13 14 /s/

CHARLES F. EICK

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