ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AS SUCCESSIVE
R. GARY KLAUSNER, District Judge.
Richard Jackson ("petitioner") initiated this action on August 1, 2017, by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("2017 Petition" or "2017 Pet."). The 2017 Petition challenges his October 27, 1997, conviction in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number SA030662, for burglary with possession of a firearm (Cal. Penal Code §§ 459, 12021). (2017 Pet. at 2).
The Court observes that on February 18, 2000, petitioner filed an earlier habeas petition in this Court, in case number CV 00-2642-ABC (CW) ("CV 00-2642"), also challenging his 1997 conviction ("2000 Petition"). The 2000 Petition was dismissed with prejudice on the merits, pursuant to the Judgment entered on April 17, 2003.
On December 19, 2003, petitioner filed another habeas petition in this Court, in case number CV 03-9313-PA (CW) ("CV 03-9313"), also challenging his October 27, 1997, conviction ("2003 Petition"). The 2003 Petition was dismissed without prejudice as successive, pursuant to the Judgment entered on January 8, 2004. (Case No. CV 03-9313, ECF No. 5). Petitioner did not appeal from that Judgment.
On December 10, 2007, petitioner filed yet another habeas petition in this Court, in case number CV 07-8017-ABC (CW) ("CV 07-8017"), also challenging his October 27, 1997, conviction ("2007 Petition"). The 2007 Petition was dismissed without prejudice as successive, pursuant to the Judgment entered on December 21, 2007. (Case No. CV 07-8017, ECF No. 6). Petitioner did not appeal from that Judgment.
In the 2017 Petition, petitioner states that on May 2, 2017, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, he filed an application to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition. (2017 Pet. at 7). He notes, and the Ninth Circuit website reflects, that a ruling on the application is still pending.
A federal habeas petition is successive if it raises claims that were or could have been adjudicated on the merits in a previous petition.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A), (B).
Furthermore, "[b]efore a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
In his 2000 Petition, petitioner claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel elicited self-incriminating admissions during petitioner's trial testimony as to his prior felony convictions. (CV 00-2642, ECF No. 23 at 8).
In the 2017 Petition, petitioner again claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and brings clams of prosecutorial misconduct, due process violations, improper jury instruction, and improper denial of his motion for new counsel pursuant to
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is