Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 10, 2020

Shah v. Fox

Judge
Richard Seeborg
Docket
3:20-cv-01385
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Shah v. Fox, Judge Seeborg dismissed Shah’s habeas petition as an unauthorized second or successive petition and denied a certificate of appealability.

Who this affects

Jay Shah’s habeas petition was dismissed. Robert W. Fox received judgment in his favor, and Shah must obtain Ninth Circuit permission before filing a second or successive habeas petition.

What happened

Shah v. Fox concerned Jay Shah’s petition challenging the same state convictions he had challenged in an earlier habeas case. The earlier case had been denied on the merits, and no certificate of appealability had been issued.

The court said Shah’s new petition was a second or successive petition under federal law. Shah had not shown that the Ninth Circuit had authorized him to file it.

Judge Seeborg dismissed the petition, entered judgment for Robert W. Fox, and closed the case. The court also said that a certificate of appealability would not issue and that Shah would need permission from the Ninth Circuit before filing a second or successive petition.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Shah v. Fox · No. 3:20-cv-01385
Judge
Richard Seeborg
Date
Mar. 10, 2020

Background

Jay Shah filed a habeas petition challenging the same state convictions challenged in his earlier habeas action. The opinion states that the earlier petition was denied on the merits in December 2018 and that neither the district court nor the Ninth Circuit issued a certificate of appealability.

Court’s analysis

The court treated Shah’s new petition as a “second or successive” petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Under that statute, Shah needed an authorization order from the Ninth Circuit before the district court could consider the petition. The court found that Shah had not shown he received that authorization. The court therefore dismissed the petition on this procedural ground rather than deciding the merits of the new petition.

Disposition

Judge Richard Seeborg ordered that the petition be dismissed as second or successive and not authorized by the Court of Appeals. The court stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue, directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Robert W. Fox, and ordered the file closed. The court also stated that Shah must first obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit if he wishes to file a second or successive habeas petition.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.