FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILSON THOMAS, No. 09-15964
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00427-LJO
v.
MEMORANDUM *
NEIL H. ADLER, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Wilson Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. 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).
Thomas contends that the district court erred in dismissing his petition on
the basis of his previous § 2241 petition, which was dismissed with prejudice.1
The instant petition, like Thomas’s previous petition, asserts that the Bureau of
Prisons wrongly denied him credit for time served on his state sentence.
The abuse of the writ doctrine generally “forbids the reconsideration of
claims that were or could have been raised in a prior habeas petition.” Calderon v.
United States Dist. Ct. (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530, 538 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc),
overruled on other grounds by Woodward v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202 (2003).
Thomas has not shown cause for bringing a successive petition, or that a
fundamental miscarriage of justice will result from the failure to entertain his
claim. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 494-95 (1991). Thus, his petition
was properly dismissed.
AFFIRMED.
1
We grant the government’s request that we take judicial notice of the
documents filed in Thomas’s previous action in the United States District Court for
the District of Oregon. See United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens
Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992).
2 09-15964