Alexander v. Davis
- William Alsup
- 3:19-cv-02596
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Alexander v. Davis, Judge Alsup dismissed Alexander’s habeas petition without prejudice because he lacked required Ninth Circuit authorization for a successive petition.
Rickey Alexander’s federal habeas petition was dismissed without prejudice; Ronald Davis’s motion to dismiss was granted.
What happened
Alexander v. Davis involved Rickey Alexander’s petition challenging the same state-court judgment he had challenged in an earlier federal habeas case. Ronald Davis, the warden, moved to dismiss because the petition was a second or successive petition.
The court explained that Alexander needed authorization from the Ninth Circuit before filing another petition challenging that judgment. Because he had not obtained authorization, the court dismissed the petition without prejudice to refiling if he later received it.
Judge William Alsup granted the motion to dismiss, ordered the petition dismissed without prejudice, found that no certificate of appealability was warranted, and directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case.
The detailed version
- Alexander v. Davis · No. 3:19-cv-02596
- William Alsup
- Oct. 9, 2019
Background
Rickey Alexander, a state prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a state-court judgment. Ronald Davis, the warden, moved to dismiss on the ground that the petition was a second or successive habeas petition.
The opinion states that Alexander had filed an earlier federal habeas petition challenging the same judgment. That earlier petition was denied on its merits, and the denial was affirmed on appeal. Alexander had not obtained an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit authorizing the district court to consider another petition challenging the judgment.
Court’s Analysis
Federal law requires a petitioner to obtain authorization from the appropriate court of appeals before filing a second or successive habeas petition in the district court. The court described this authorization requirement as jurisdictional. Because Alexander’s current petition challenged the same judgment and he had not obtained the required authorization, the court concluded that the petition had to be dismissed.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed without prejudice the petition to allow refiling if Alexander obtains authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive petition. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability was warranted and directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the file. Judge William Alsup signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.