ORDER

HOWARD D. McKIBBEN, District Judge.

Before the court is defendant Dale W. Ward's petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed on February 4, 2016(#386).

On November 8, 2000, a third superseding indictment was issued charging defendant with conspiracy to possess with intent to manufacture, to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, manufacture of methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of a listed chemical with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, establishment of methamphetamine manufacturing operations, and aiding and abetting(#137). After a plea of not guilty, the defendant was found guilty on all counts of the third superseding indictment (#238). On February 12, 2002, a judgment of conviction was entered and defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without release (#238).

On March 27, 2003, the defendant filed a petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (#269). Following a response from the government and a reply from defendant, the court denied defendant's motion on March 14, 2005 (##321, 322). Defendant requested a certificate of appealability on the court's order, which was denied (##331, 332, 338). Defendant appealed, and on January 26, 2006, the Ninth Circuit denied defendant a certificate of appealability (#362). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal inmate may move to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence if: (1) the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; (2) the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law; or (4) the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Where the defendant has previously filed a § 2255 petition, a second or successive § 2255 petition cannot be considered by the district court absent a certificate from the Court of Appeals authorizing it to do so. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); 28 U.S.C. § 2244; United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1065 (9th Cir. 2011).

As the defendant has previously filed a § 2255, the instant motion is a second or successive petition. Accordingly, as the Ninth Circuit has not authorized the filing of a second or successive § 2255 petition in this case, the court is without jurisdiction to consider it and the motion (#386) is therefore DENIED. The defendant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (#387), motion for appointment of counsel (#388), and request for leave to file an exhibit (#389) are DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.