1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

JAY SHAH,

10 Case No. 20-cv-01385-RS Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 12

ROBERT W. FOX,

13 Respondent. 14

15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 Petitioner Jay Shah has filed a habeas petition challenging the same state convictions he 18 challenged in a prior (and now closed) habeas action, Shah v. Fox, No. 17-cv-06737-RS (N.D. 19 Cal. filed Nov. 22, 2017). The instant petition will be dismissed as second or successive to the 20 prior petition. If petitioner wishes to file a successive habeas petition, he must first obtain 21 permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 22 II. BACKGROUND 23 Shah’s prior petition was denied on the merits in December 2018, and a certificate of 24 appealability was not issued by either the district court or the Ninth Circuit. See id., Dkt. Nos. 22, 25 25. 26 III. DISCUSSION 27 This petition will be dismissed as second or successive. As noted, in 2017 Shah filed a 1 merits. Therefore, a “further petition challenging the same conviction would be ‘second or 2 successive’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).” McNabb vy. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th 3 || Cir. 2009). 4 In order to file a second or successive petition, Shah must obtain an order from the Court 5 of Appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 6 || Shah has not shown that he has received such authorization. Accordingly, the instant petition 7 must be dismissed as second or successive, the filing of which has not been authorized by the 8 Court of Appeals. 9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 The instant petition is DISMISSED as second or successive, the filing of which has not 11 been authorized by the Court of Appeals. If petitioner wishes to file a second or successive habeas 12 petition, he first must obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 13 A certificate of appealability will not issue. Shah has not shown “that jurists of reason S 14 would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 3 15 right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 16 || procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Clerk shall enter judgment 5 17. || 1n favor of respondent and close the file.

19 || ITISSO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: March 10, 2020 22 HMA Sohn □

RICHARD SEEBORG

23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 98 ORDER OF DISMISSAL CASE No. 20-cv-01385-RS