9th Cir.;
15-71566

The court of appeals denied an application to file a second or successive petition as unnecessary and transferred the case back to the district court. The court held that a habeas petition challenging a state court denial of a post-judgment petition for resentencing under California's Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 was not a “second or successive petition” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §2254, and did not require the court of appeals' permission for filing.

In 1997, Curtis Clayton was convicted of multiple felonies and sentenced under California's Three Strikes Law to a prison term of 25 years to life. The judgment of sentence was upheld on appeal, as modified, and the district court denied Clayton's petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 2012, California voters passed the Reform Act, which allows inmates with a non-serious and non-violent third strike to petition for resentencing. Clayton promptly petitioned for resentencing. The trial court found Clayton ineligible for resentencing and denied the petition. Clayton petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the state court violated his due process rights by denying him resentencing without a hearing.