REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DEBORAH M. FINE, Magistrate Judge.

TO THE HONORABLE STEVEN P. LOGAN, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, a petitioner may not file a second or successive § 2254 petition in the district court unless the petitioner has obtained a certification from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing the district court to consider the second or subsequent § 2254 petition. A habeas petition is "`second or successive' if it raises claims that were or could have been adjudicated on their merits in an earlier petition." Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1273 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). Petitioner has previously challenged his conviction in a prior habeas corpus petition (Docs. 10, 13). The current petition, therefore, is second or successive. Petitioner has not presented a certification from the Ninth Circuit authorizing the Court to consider a second or successive § 2254 petition. Accordingly, the current Petition and this action should be dismissed as a successive petition.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Alfonso Lopez-Millan's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondents' Motion to Dismiss be granted. (Doc. 13)

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling debatable.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.