ORDER

JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.

Petitioner Esteban Hernandez has submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1-1). He has paid the filing fee, and therefore his application to proceed in forma pauperis shall be denied as moot.

Petitioner indicates on the face of his petition that he challenged the same judgment of conviction in a previous habeas petition: 2:03-cv-01008-KJD-RJJ. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A) provides: "[b]efore a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." Where a petition has been dismissed with prejudice as untimely or because of procedural default, the dismissal constitutes a disposition on the merits and renders a subsequent petition second or successive for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244. McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029-1030 (9th Cir. 2009); Henderson v. Lampert, 396 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2005).

On April 27, 2004, this court dismissed Hernandez's first petition with prejudice as procedurally barred, and judgment was entered (2:03-cv-01008-KJD-RJJ, ECF Nos. 9, 10). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this court's order on March 23, 2005 (2:03-cv-01008-KJD-RJJ, ECF No. 16). Moreover, on June 25, 2014, this court dismissed Hernandez's second federal habeas petition as second and successive (2:12-cv-02003-JCM-PAL, ECF No. 27). This petition, therefore, is a second or successive habeas corpus petition. Henderson v. Lampert, 396 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2005). Petitioner was required to obtain authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals before he could proceed with a second or successive petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Petitioner indicates on the face of this petition that he has not received authorization from the court of appeals (ECF No. 1-1, p. 2). Accordingly, this petition shall be dismissed with prejudice as second and successive.

Reasonable jurists would not find this conclusion to be debatable or wrong, and the court will not issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk shall DETACH and FILE the petition (ECF No. 1-1).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's ex parte motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 2) and motion requesting to consolidate (ECF No. 5) are both DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED with prejudice as a successive petition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall add Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada Attorney General, as counsel for respondents.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall electronically serve the petition, along with a copy of this order, on respondents. No response by respondents is necessary.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and close this case.