Jesse Youngblood v. Superior Court of Butte Co. , 610 F. App'x 664 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSE L. YOUNGBLOOD, No. 13-17288
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01490-GGH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SUPERIOR COURT OF BUTTE CO.;
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Gregory G. Hollows, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted July 21, 2015***
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jesse L. Youngblood appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as second or successive. We have jurisdiction under
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Appellant consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, see Wentzell v. Neven, 674 F.3d 1124,
1126 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
Youngblood contends that the district court should not have deemed his
habeas petition second or successive under section 2244(b) because his first habeas
petition was not decided on the merits but rather dismissed as barred by the statute
of limitations. As Youngblood concedes, this argument is foreclosed by McNabb
v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009). We are bound by that decision. See
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.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-17288