Cesar Noel Hernandez v. Warden, 2:20-cv-07846

Hernandez was convicted of murder in 2007 for a shooting at a cockfight and is serving a life term.
He filed a 2009 federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim; the petition was denied on the merits.
In 2020 Hernandez filed a new § 2254 petition asserting ineffective assistance, instructional error, prosecutorial misconduct, and newly discovered factual evidence (a prior knife injury from the Philippines), and referencing Ramos.
The magistrate judge screened the 2020 petition and noted no Ninth Circuit authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) accompanied the filing.
The Attorney General moved to dismiss the petition as successive and untimely; Hernandez acknowledged the action is successive and said he would seek leave from the Ninth Circuit but has not done so.
The Court summarily dismissed the 2020 petition for lack of jurisdiction under the successive-petition rule, and declined to reach the alternative timeliness/merits arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2020 § 2254 petition is "second or successive" and requires prior Ninth Circuit authorization	Hernandez contends he discovered new evidence and raises new legal theory (Ramos), which justify a new petition	Respondent argues the petition attacks the same conviction, lacks Ninth Circuit authorization, and is therefore successive	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Hernandez must obtain Ninth Circuit authorization before filing in district court
Whether the district court may reach timeliness or merits despite lack of authorization	Hernandez urges merits consideration of his claims	Respondent alternatively argued the petition is untimely under AEDPA	Court declined to decide timeliness/merits because it lacked jurisdiction; such questions belong to the court of appeals during authorization review

Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive habeas petition filed without court of appeals authorization)
Brown v. Muniz, 889 F.3d 661 (9th Cir.) (district court must dismiss second or successive petition absent appellate authorization)
Prince v. Lizzaraga, [citation="733 F. App'x 382"] (9th Cir.) (petitioner must apply to this court for permission before district court consideration)
Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (Supreme Court) (listed by petitioner as a new legal theory basis; any such new-theory consideration is part of appellate authorization review)