ORDER

MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.

Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court has reviewed it under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Petitioner needs to show cause why the court should not dismiss this action as a second or successive petition.

Petitioner challenges the validity of the judgment of conviction in State v. Voss, Case No. CR97-2077, in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada. Petitioner challenged the same judgment of conviction in Voss v. Baca, Case No. 3:15cv-00183-HDM-VPC. The court dismissed that action because it was untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Petitioner appealed that dismissal. Both this Court and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability.

"[D]ismissal of a section 2254 habeas petition for failure to comply with the statute of limitations renders subsequent petitions second or successive for purposes of . . . 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)." McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009). Petitioner must first obtain authorization from the court of appeals before this Court can consider his petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Nothing in the documents that petitioner has filed indicates that he has received such authorization.

Petitioner will need to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this action as a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). The showing of cause must be one thing only: authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive petition. The Court will not entertain any arguments why it should consider the petition absent that authorization because petitioner needs to make those arguments to the court of appeals, not this Court, in his application for authorization.

It is therefore ordered that petitioner will have thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as a second or successive petition. Failure to comply will result in the dismissal of this action.

It is further ordered that the clerk add Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General for the State of Nevada, as counsel for respondents.

It is further ordered that the clerk electronically serve upon respondents a copy of the petition and this order. Respondents' counsel must enter a notice of appearance herein within twenty (20) days of entry of this order, but no further response is required from respondents until further order of the Court.