Narciso Ramirez v. C. Pfeiffer, 2:24-cv-04529

Narciso Ramirez, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2016 conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter in Los Angeles County.
Ramirez previously filed a federal habeas petition in 2018 raising related claims, some of which were voluntarily dismissed as unexhausted; the remainder was denied on the merits.
The new petition raised additional claims including ineffective assistance of counsel, racial discrimination, judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, evidence falsification, and due process violations.
The court determined this new petition was a "second or successive" petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), and Ramirez had not obtained authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file it.
None of the claims in the current petition had been presented to the California Supreme Court, making them unexhausted.
The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and denied a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether district court had jurisdiction over a second or successive habeas petition without appellate authorization	Ramirez argued his new habeas claims merit review for conviction error	State argued no jurisdiction without Ninth Circuit authorization	Court held it lacked jurisdiction absent required appellate authorization
Whether new claims, including ineffective assistance and misconduct, could be raised	Argued new legal theories justified relief even if not previously raised	Respondent contended AEDPA bars new claims without appellate approval	Court held new claims still subject to AEDPA procedural requirements
Whether prior unexhausted claims could be relitigated	Ramirez appeared to re-raise claims previously dismissed as unexhausted	No new exhaustion; respondent relied on lack of state Supreme Court review	Court held claims remained unexhausted and not properly before court
Whether a certificate of appealability should issue	Ramirez might seek to appeal dismissal	Respondent argued standards were unmet	Court denied certificate as no debatable grounds shown

Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (AEDPA restricts federal power over successive habeas petitions)
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (district courts lack jurisdiction over second/successive petitions without appellate authorization)
Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (summary dismissal appropriate when habeas relief is clearly barred)
Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891 (proper respondent is the warden at petitioner’s current institution)
Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882 (California prisoners must exhaust claims before state Supreme Court)