Mark Lee Stinson v. Mike Knowles;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
SR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK LEE STINSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MIKE KNOWLES; et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 07-16369
D.C. No. CV-06-00068-FCD
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Mark Lee Stinson appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

SR/Research 07-16369 2
The district court correctly determined that Stinson’s original § 2254
petition, which was dismissed because it was untimely, was disposed of on the
merits for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028,
1029-30 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). As a result, the § 2254 petition that Stinson
filed in 2006 was a second or successive petition. See id at 1030. Therefore,
Stinson was required to obtain authorization from this Court before filing the
petition in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Because Stinson failed
to obtain such authorization, the district court properly concluded that it lacked
jurisdiction to consider the petition. See Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274
(9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
Stinson’s request for counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --