Armstrong
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:24-cv-05580
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Armstrong v. St. Andre, Judge Seeborg dismissed Armstrong’s unauthorized successive habeas petition, granted fee-free filing status, and declined a certificate of appealability.
Dennis L. Armstrong’s new petition challenging his 2000 state-court judgment was dismissed; the court granted his application to proceed without paying filing fees, entered judgment for Rob St. Andre, and closed the case.
What happened
In Dennis L. Armstrong v. Rob St. Andre, Armstrong filed a petition challenging the same 2000 California state convictions and judgment that he had challenged in an earlier related proceeding. The earlier petition was denied on the merits, and the appeals court declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal.
The court said Armstrong could not file another petition about the same judgment without authorization from the appeals court. Because he had not shown that he received that authorization, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the new petition.
Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the petition as a second or successive petition that had not been authorized by the appeals court. The court also granted Armstrong permission to proceed without paying filing fees, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, entered judgment for the respondent, terminated pending motions, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Armstrong · No. 3:24-cv-05580
- Richard Seeborg
- Dec. 11, 2024
Background
Dennis L. Armstrong filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the same 2000 California state-court judgment involved in his earlier related proceeding. The judgment arose from robbery convictions in Alameda County Superior Court and imposed a sentence of 31 years and four months. The earlier petition was denied on the merits. The appeals court later declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Court’s analysis
The court treated the new petition as a second or successive petition. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), a petitioner must obtain authorization from the appeals court before filing such a petition in the district court. The court explained that, without that authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction—that is, legal power—to consider the petition. Armstrong had not shown that he received the required authorization.
Ruling
Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the petition as second or successive and unauthorized by the appeals court. The court also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Armstrong had not shown that reasonable judges could debate either whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the district court was correct about the procedural ruling.
The court granted Armstrong’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. It directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of the respondent, and close the file.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.