ORDER OF DISMISSAL

CHARLES F. EICK, Magistrate Judge.

BACKGROUND

On March 4, 2016, Petitioner filed: (1) a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody"; and (2) an "Election Regarding Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge" consenting to the Magistrate Judge. The Petition seeks to challenge Petitioner's state court conviction and sentence. Petitioner previously challenged this same state court conviction and sentence in a prior federal habeas petition filed in this Court. See Young v. Evans, CV 05-0442-ABC(Mc); Respondent's Lodgment 10. On October 19, 2005, this Court entered Judgment in Young v. Evans, CV 05-0442-ABC(Mc), dismissing the prior petition as untimely. See Respondent's Lodgment 11.

On March 7, 2016, the Court issued an "Order Requiring Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" in the present action. On April 21, 2016, Respondent filed a "Motion to Vacate Order Requiring Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, etc." ("Motion to Vacate"), contending that the Petition is second or successive within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. section 2244(b). On April 21, 2016, Respondent filed a "Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge, etc."

On June 3, 2016, Petitioner filed an "Opposition to Motion to Vacate Order Requiring Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, etc." ("Opposition").1

DISCUSSION

Section 2244(b) of Title 28, United States Code, requires that a petitioner seeking to file a "second or successive" habeas petition first obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (where petitioner did not receive authorization from Court of Appeals before filing "second or successive" petition, "the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain [the petition]"); Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1111 (9th Cir. 2000) ("the prior-appellate-review mechanism set forth in § 2244(b) requires the permission of the court of appeals before `a second or successive habeas application under § 2254' may be commenced"). A petition need not be repetitive to be "second or successive," within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. section 2244(b). See, e.g., Thompson v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 920-21 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 965 (1998); Calbert v. Marshall, 2008 WL 649798, at *2-4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2008).

The present Petition is second or successive. See McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) ("dismissal of a section 2254 habeas petition for failure to comply with the statute of limitations renders subsequent petitions second or successive for purposes of the AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)") (footnote omitted); see also Youngblood v. Superior Court of Butte Co., 610 Fed. App'x 664 (9th Cir.), cert. dism'd, 136 S.Ct. 546 (2015) (contention that petition was not second or successive because prior petition was dismissed as untimely "foreclosed" by McNabb v. Yates; quoting Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1171 (9th Cir. 2001) ("Once a panel resolves an issue in a precedential opinion, the matter is deemed resolved, unless overruled by the court itself sitting en banc, or by the Supreme Court.")).

Petitioner argues that the exception contained in section 2244(b)(2)(B) applies in the present circumstances (see Opposition, pp. 3, 9-12).2 However, under section 2244(b)(3)(A), a petitioner seeking to file a "second or successive" petition must first obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals. See Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 2008) ("Even if a petitioner can demonstrate that he qualifies for one of [the] exceptions [contained in section 2244(B)(2)], he must seek authorization from the court of appeals before filing his new petition with the district court.") (citation omitted); Ramirez v. Figueroa, 2016 WL 1296363, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2016) ("Petitioner must seek the Ninth Circuit's authorization to file a successive petition even if he can demonstrate that he qualifies for one of the exceptions to AEDPA's bar on successive petitions.") (citation omitted); Chaney v. Dickerson, 2011 WL 781658, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2011) ("It is the Ninth Circuit's responsibility, not this Court's, to determine that the requirements of § 2244(b)(2)(B) have been met by filing a proper request with the Ninth Circuit for leave to file a successive petition.") (citations omitted). Petitioner evidently has not yet obtained the Ninth Circuit's authorization to file a "second or successive" petition.3 Consequently, this Court cannot entertain the present Petition. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. at 157.

ORDER

For all the foregoing reasons, Respondent's Motion to Vacate is granted. The Court's March 7, 2016 "Order Requiring Answer to Petition, etc." is vacated. The Petition is denied and dismissed without prejudice.4

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.