Joe Sherman v. Yolo County Chief Probation Officer; Attorney General of the State of California

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOE SHERMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
YOLO COUNTY CHIEF PROBATION
OFFICER; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 08-17776
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01645-MCE
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April, 5 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Joe Sherman appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
APR 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

The district court properly dismissed Sherman’s petition as successive
because it was his second petition challenging the same condition of his probation,
and Sherman had not obtained an order from this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(A). See Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001)
(per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm the district court.
We construe Sherman’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R.
22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per
curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --