*1 ‐ Superintendent Great Meadow Correctional Facility UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT _________________________

August Term, (Submitted: October Decided: November Docket No.

_________________________

J ESUS H. G ARCIA ,

Petitioner , ‐‐ ‐‐ S UPERINTENDENT OF G REAT M EADOW C ORRECTIONAL F ACILITY , Respondent . _________________________

Before:

K EARSE J ACOBS L OHIER , Circuit Judges . _________________________

Petitioner Jesus H. moves *2 abuse. His three prior petitions challenging were dismissed incomprehensible. dismissals “on merits,” thus triggering, for he now seeks file, applicable petitions. Additionally, because proposed does satisfy standards, DENY his for it.

_________________________ J ESUS H. G ARCIA pro se, Malone, New York, for Petitioner, L ISA E LLEN F LEISCHMANN Assistant Attorney General, New York State Office Attorney General, New York, New York, Respondent. _________________________

P ER C URIAM :

Jesus H. Garcia, pro se, moves challenging abuse. He previously multiple conviction, each which incomprehensible. preliminary question such dismissals are thus making “successive.” *3 that an denying petition of petition was notice district considered petition to incomprehensible, had to cure defect. For reasons stated in this opinion, DENY Garcia’s file.

BACKGROUND Garcia filed petition abuse. Although legible, was critical respect was impossible discern claims. district ordered Garcia amend, explaining originally filed was “indecipherable” therefore failed claim. After failed amend, this Court denied certificate of appealability.

Before expiration time seek this Court’s order, two additional petitions court. Since adjudication not yet final, not within meaning 2244(b). Hom Sui Ching United States (noting new *4 successive until adjudication prior 2255 is “final”); Whab United States F.3d 116, 120 (2d Cir. (adjudication is “final” when seek Court expired). dismissed both incomprehensible. Garcia appealed one two dismissals, this Court appeal failure move certificate appealability. Garcia did appeal other dismissal. 2016, present successive

petition. Although appears again attempting challenge abuse conviction, specific arguments cannot be discerned.

DISCUSSION Under may consider only if obtains from this Court authorizing filing petition. See 2244(b)(3). However, before determining whether grant petition, this must consider indeed successive. Vu United States Generally speaking, prior challenged same *5 and “decided on merits.” Id. (discussing criteria in context a 2255 motion). have never decided an order dismissing as requirements.

However, ordinary civil context, an complaint fails state claim, see Prezzi v. Schelter , F.2d 691, (2d Cir. 1972), dismissal failure claim operates “a final judgment on merits thus res judicata effects,” Berrios N.Y.C. Hous. Auth. F.3d (2d Cir. 2009). It should follow an dismissing once matter fully adjudicated, should likewise operate “final should therefore trigger rules governing petitions.

At same time, however, have also held should dismiss pro se complaint “without granting amend at least once,” unless amendment futile. Cuoco Moritsugu “Our reluctance dismiss these complaints at such early stage proceedings stems part from limited legal knowledge resources available pro se plaintiffs, which may hamper their ability articulate *6 potentially valid claims legally cognizable language.” McEachin McGuinnis These concerns are heightened context, because prisoners ordinarily lack legal knowledge and resources. Moreover, issue at stake—the legality prisoner’s confinement—is fundamental importance.

Accordingly, denying “on requirements was notice considered had reasonable opportunity cure defect.

Those satisfied here. In first proceeding, granted amend “indecipherable” petition. thereby alerted deficiency afforded him cure it. addition, second third petitions, also indecipherable, after had already been rejected very defect. Under these circumstances, each three orders dismissing triggered *7 requirements applicable to successive § for of the new he now seeks file.

Having concluded that present is successive, must consider whether it satisfies of 2244(b), that is, whether it relies on a new retroactive constitutional rule, or it relies on sufficient showing of facts previously unavailable. Since motion for leave file is others, he not made “prima facie showing” application satisfies 2244(b)(2) requirements. U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(C). Accordingly, hereby ORDERED DENIED.

[1] This must deny containing new claim, unless: (A) applicant shows claim relies on new rule constitutional law, made retroactive cases collateral by Court, previously unavailable; or (B)(i) factual predicate claim could have been discovered previously through exercise due diligence; (ii) facts underlying claim, proven viewed light evidence whole, would sufficient establish by clear convincing evidence that, but constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder have found applicant guilty underlying offense. 2244(b)(2).