Ronald Adams v. J. Gastelo, 2:17-cv-03218

Petitioner Ronald Adams filed a §2254 habeas petition in April 2017 challenging a 1981 California conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a minor (Cal. Pen. Code §288).
The Court took judicial notice of a prior habeas petition Adams filed in May 2004 in the same district attacking the same conviction; that 2004 petition was dismissed with prejudice as time‑barred.
Under AEDPA §2244(b), a habeas application that is second or successive is subject to dismissal unless authorized by the court of appeals or it meets narrow new‑law or newly discovered‑facts exceptions.
Because the 2004 petition was dismissed as untimely, the 2017 petition qualifies as a second or successive petition under Ninth Circuit precedent (McNabb v. Yates).
Adams did not obtain prior authorization from the Ninth Circuit before filing the 2017 petition, depriving the district court of subject‑matter jurisdiction to consider it.
The court therefore dismissed the 2017 petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, referred the filing to the Ninth Circuit under Ninth Circuit Rule 22‑3(a), and denied a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2017 petition is a second or successive petition under AEDPA	Adams implicitly contends the petition may be heard despite prior 2004 filing	Respondent argues AEDPA treats the 2017 petition as second/successive because the same conviction was previously challenged	Court: Petition is second/successive because the 2004 petition was dismissed as time‑barred (McNabb)
Whether Adams needed Ninth Circuit authorization before filing	Adams filed directly in district court without prior authorization	Respondent: §2244(b)(3)(A) requires the prisoner to obtain the court of appeals’ authorization first	Court: District court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction because Adams did not obtain Ninth Circuit authorization
Whether the district court may both refer the petition to the Ninth Circuit and dismiss it	Adams did not obtain leave; implicit argument to allow adjudication	Respondent cites Ninth Circuit Rule 22‑3(a) requiring referral of mistaken submissions	Court: Court may simultaneously dismiss and refer under Ninth Circuit Rule 22‑3(a); clerk will send petition and order to Ninth Circuit and provide application form
Whether a Certificate of Appealability (COA) should issue	Adams might seek COA to appeal dismissal	Respondent: procedural dismissal bars COA absent debatable procedural ruling and merits question	Court: COA denied — no jurists of reason would find the procedural ruling debatable (Slack standard)

McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) (dismissal of a §2254 petition as time‑barred renders later petitions second or successive under AEDPA)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (when a habeas petition is denied on procedural grounds, a COA requires showing both debatability of the constitutional claim and of the procedural ruling)
Mir v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp., 844 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1988) (courts may take judicial notice of their own records)