Michael Brock v. J. Gastelo, 5:17-cv-00800

Michael Brock, a California state prisoner, pleaded guilty in 2000 to first‑degree murder and was sentenced to 25 years to life. He did not seek review in the California Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal affirmed in 2002.
Brock pursued state habeas relief through the superior court, the California Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court; those petitions were denied.
Brock filed a federal habeas petition in 2009 (First Federal Petition), which was dismissed with prejudice as untimely in 2014; the Ninth Circuit denied a COA and reconsideration, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied relief.
He filed a second federal habeas petition in 2014; the district court dismissed it without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and referred it to the Ninth Circuit as a possible second or successive petition; the Ninth Circuit denied authorization in 2015.
Brock filed the Current Federal Petition in April 2017 challenging the same state conviction but did not obtain Ninth Circuit authorization to file a second or successive petition.
The magistrate judge denied the Current Federal Petition and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and ordered the petition referred to the Ninth Circuit under Ninth Circuit Rule 22‑3(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court has jurisdiction to hear the 2017 petition (successive petition rule)	Brock contends he may proceed in district court to attack his conviction again.	The petition is successive and Brock did not obtain Ninth Circuit authorization, so the district court lacks jurisdiction.	Court held petition is successive and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether Brock's prior untimely dismissal counts as a merits disposition making later petitions successive	Brock presumably argues the dismissal was technical or not on the merits.	The government argues the First Petition dismissal as untimely constitutes a merits disposition under Ninth Circuit law.	Court held the untimely dismissal is a merits disposition (per McNabb), rendering the Current Petition successive.
Whether the petition should be referred to the Ninth Circuit	Brock did not seek or obtain authorization first.	Court should refer mistakenly filed second/successive petitions to the Ninth Circuit under circuit rule.	Court directed the Clerk to refer the petition to the Ninth Circuit pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 22‑3(a).
Remedy for lack of authorization	Brock seeks adjudication on the merits in district court.	Without prior authorization, district court must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; denial without prejudice appropriate.	Court denied the petition and dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007) (district court may not entertain second or successive habeas petition absent appellate authorization)
Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1996) (section 2244(b)(3)(A) creates gatekeeping mechanism for successive petitions)
Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court lacks jurisdiction to consider successive petition without authorization)
United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (discusses application of gatekeeping rules)
Nevius v. McDaniel, 218 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2000) (standards for prima facie showing under § 2244(b))
McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) (statute of limitations dismissal treated as merits disposition making later petition successive)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (distinguishing procedural dismissals that do not render subsequent petitions successive)
Stewart v. Martinez‑Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 (1998) (dismissal as premature does not make later petition successive)
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995) (dismissals for failure to prosecute treated as judgment on the merits)