10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The pro se petitioner, Richard I. Fine, is in the custody of the
Sheriff of Los Angeles County under a contempt judgment issued March
4, 2009, by the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, in Case
No. BS109420. Petitioner previously sought to challenge that custody
in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2254, in
this court, in Case No. CV 09-1914-JFW(CW). That prior petition was
denied and dismissed with prejudice in a judgment entered June 29,
2009. Petitioner\u2019s appeal of that denial is pending before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Case No. 09-56073.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The present petition is simply an attempt to re-argue issues
Petitioner raised in his prior petition. Furthermore, although
Petitioner lists this district court as a respondent in the present
petition, he is not in the custody of this court. On the contrary,
this court has simply declined to order him released from the custody
of the Sheriff of Los Angeles County.

If it appears from the face of a habeas petition and any attached
exhibits that a petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
court the petition may be summarily dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2243;
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. \u00a7 2254, Rule 1(b)
(rules also apply to habeas petitions not under \u00a7 2254), Rule 4
(summary dismissal); Local Rules Governing Duties of Magistrate Judges
(C.D. Cal.), Rule 3.2.2 (summary dismissal by presented order).

Under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2241 a federal district court has jurisdiction
to consider an application for habeas corpus relief which alleges that
the petitioner \u201cis in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws
or treaties of the United States.\u201d 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2241(c)(3). However,
\u201cthe authority of the federal courts to grant habeas relief to state
prisoners under \u00a7 2241 is limited by 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2254.\u201d Greenawalt v.
Stewart, 105 F.3d 1287, 1287 (9th Cir. 1997)(per curiam)(citing Felker
v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 662, 116 S. Ct. 2333, 135 L. Ed. 2d 827
(1996).1

Petitioner is in custody pursuant to a state court judgment,
and he is seeking to challenge the legality of that custody.
Therefore, even if he seeks to bring his petition under 28 U.S.C.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

There are exceptions, under which a new petition is not
subject to dismissal as successive (for example, if a prior petition
was dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state
remedies, or if a new petition challenges parole decisions that could
not have been addressed in a prior petition), but none of these
exceptions apply in the present case.

\u00a7 2241, review is limited by the law applying to petitions under 28
U.S.C. \u00a7 2254. Felker, 518 U.S. at 662. For example, a state
prisoner may not use an application under \u00a7 2241 to evade the
limitations on successive petitions that apply to petitions brought
under \u00a7 2254. Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1287-88.

A new habeas petition which challenges the same state court judgment addressed in one or more prior petitions, is a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2244 (a)-(b).2

A federal
district court may not consider a second or successive petition unless
the petitioner has first obtained an order from the proper federal
circuit court of appeals authorizing the district court to review the
new petition. See 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2244(b)(3) (A). The court of appeals
may only authorize review of a second or successive petition in the
district court if the petitioner \u201cmakes a prima facie showing [to the
court of appeals] that the application satisfies the requirements of\u201d
28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2244(b). See 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2244(b)(3)(C); Felker v. Turpin,
518 U.S. 651, 657, 116 S. Ct. 2333, 135 L. Ed. 2d 827 (1996).

The present petition is a second or successive petition under
\u00a7 2244(b)(3)(A) because it challenges the same state court judgment
challenged in Case No. CV 09-1914, and that petition was dismissed
with prejudice. This court may not review a successive petition
unless the petitioner has first obtained the required order from the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. There is no