Haag v. Baker, 3:17-cv-00685

Petitioner Steven Anthony Haag filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his state conviction in case CR03-1520.
Court took judicial notice that Haag previously filed a habeas petition challenging the same conviction in 3:07-cv-00132, which was denied on the merits on March 4, 2010.
Haag also previously filed a later petition in 3:12-cv-00594, which this Court dismissed as successive and the Ninth Circuit denied authorization to file a successive petition.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), a petitioner must obtain authorization from the appropriate court of appeals before filing a second or successive habeas petition in district court.
Haag did not obtain authorization from the Ninth Circuit for the current petition; he acknowledged the prior filings on the petition form.
The Court dismissed the petition as second or successive and denied a certificate of appealability; no response from respondents was required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition is a second or successive habeas application	Haag seeks to challenge same conviction CR03-1520 (implicitly contends filing is permissible)	Respondents assert petition is successive because prior petitions challenged same conviction and were dismissed/denied on merits or as successive	Petition is second/successive because prior petition was adjudicated on the merits and later petitions were denied as successive; authorization from Ninth Circuit was required and absent
Whether Hague obtained required appellate authorization	Haag did not allege or show Ninth Circuit authorization	Respondents point to lack of authorization as jurisdictional bar under § 2244(b)(3)(A)	Lack of authorization mandates dismissal of the successive petition
Whether dismissal requires a certificate of appealability (COA)	Haag could seek COA to appeal dismissal	Respondents would argue no substantial showing of debatable constitutional error	Court denied COA, concluding reasonable jurists would not find the dismissal debatable
Whether respondent must file a response to the petition	Haag might expect merits briefing	Respondents asserted jurisdictional bar obviates need for response	Court ordered no response necessary and directed clerk to close case

McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) (dismissal on timeliness or procedural default constitutes an adjudication on the merits for successive-petition purposes)
Henderson v. Lampert, 396 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2005) (prior habeas adjudication renders later petition second or successive; appellate authorization required under § 2244(b)(3)(A))