Hung Linh Hoang v. Unknown, 8:17-cv-00495

Petitioner Hung Linh Hoang was convicted in 2004 of attempted murder and active participation in a criminal street gang in Orange County, California.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction on direct review in 2006; the California Supreme Court denied review.
In 2015–2016 Petitioner obtained state habeas relief: the California Court of Appeal vacated the gang participation conviction under People v. Rodriguez and ordered correction of the abstract of judgment.
Petitioner previously filed a federal §2254 habeas petition in 2010 in this Court; that petition was denied as untimely and dismissed with prejudice.
In March 2017 Petitioner submitted a one-page letter construed as a second §2254 petition to challenge additional grounds he claims were not raised in state court; he asked the Court for guidance or counsel.
The district court concluded the filing is a second or successive §2254 petition and dismissed it without prejudice for lack of authorization from the Ninth Circuit, declining to appoint counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the March 2017 filing may be heard as a new §2254 petition	Hoang says newly discovered evidence and unfiled state claims justify relief and equitable tolling	Respondent (and court) contends the filing is a second/successive petition requiring Ninth Circuit authorization under §2244(b)	Court held the petition is second/successive and must be dismissed without prejudice for lack of Ninth Circuit authorization
Whether petitioner may proceed without seeking authorization from the Ninth Circuit	Hoang requests district court guidance and counsel instead of circuit authorization	Court cites §2244(b)(3)(A) — must obtain circuit authorization before district court considers successive claims	Court held district court lacks jurisdiction absent prior Ninth Circuit authorization
Whether equitable tolling or newly discovered evidence exception applies	Hoang asserts equitable tolling and newly discovered evidence support his claims	Court notes such exceptions require satisfying §2244(b)(2)(B) and circuit authorization first	Court did not reach merits; dismissed for procedural defect (successive petition)
Whether to appoint counsel	Hoang requested appointment of counsel	Respondent did not argue; court considered dismissal dispositive	Court declined to appoint counsel because case dismissed without further adjudication

United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118 (9th Cir.) (judicial notice of court records)
Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court lacks jurisdiction to consider successive habeas claims without circuit authorization)
Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2010) (courts may take judicial notice of state court dockets and pleadings)