Jackie Gregg v. Brian Belleque, No. 09-35600 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 03 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JACKIE RICHARD GREGG, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 09-35600 D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00984-OMP v. MEMORANDUM * BRIAN BELLEQUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 23, 2010 ** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Oregon state prisoner Jackie Richard Gregg appeals from the district court s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as second or successive. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Relying on the legitimate excuse doctrine, Gregg contends that his petition is not second or successive within the meaning of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act because Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), had not been decided at the at the time he filed his previous habeas petition. Because Gregg neither sought nor received authorization from this court before filing the instant petition, the district court was without jurisdiction to consider it. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152-54 (2007). To the extent Burton is applying for an order authorizing a second or successive petition, such request is denied. See United States v. Cook, 386 F.3d 949, 950 (2004) (denying an application for a second or successive § 2255 motion because the Supreme Court has not made Blakely retroactive to cases on collateral review ). AFFIRMED. 2 09-35600
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
