Gomez v. Davis et al
Filing
8
ORDER of Dismissal. FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability will issue. FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied without prejudice, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 11/29/12. (mjgsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03008-BNB
PETER E. GOMEZ,
Applicant,
v.
JOHN DAVIS, B.V.M.C.,
TOM CLEMENTS, Executive Director DOC, and
JOHN SUTHERS, Attorney General of the State of Colorado,
Respondents.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Applicant, Peter E. Gomez, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections at the Buena Vista Minimum Center in Buena Vista,
Colorado. Mr. Gomez has filed pro se an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 5). Mr. Gomez is challenging the validity of his
guilty plea and sentence in Delta County District Court case number 01CR205. For the
reasons stated below, the action will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Mr. Gomez previously has sought habeas corpus relief in this Court pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the validity of the same state court conviction and
sentence. See Gomez v. Wilson, No. 11-cv-03264-LTB (D. Colo. Feb. 23, 2012). The
prior habeas corpus action was dismissed as barred by the one-year limitation period in
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Therefore, the Court finds that the instant application is a second
or successive application. See Johnson v. Workman, 446 F. App’x 92, 93 n.1 (10th Cir.
2011) (noting that “dismissal of a § 2254 petition as time-barred is a decision on the
merits for purposes of determining whether a subsequent petition is second or
successive”).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), Mr. Gomez must apply to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for an order authorizing this Court to
consider his second or successive habeas corpus application. See In re Cline, 531
F.3d 1249, 1252 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). In the absence of such authorization, the
Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of the claims asserted in a second or
successive § 2254 application. See id. at 1251. An applicant seeking authorization to
file a second or successive application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2254
must demonstrate that any claim he seeks to raise is based on “a new rule of
constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
that was previously unavailable,” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A); or that “the factual
predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise
of due diligence” and “the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the
evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence
that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant
guilty of the underlying offense.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B).
Mr. Gomez does not allege that he has obtained authorization from the Tenth
Circuit to file a second or successive § 2254 application. Therefore, the Court must
either dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction or, if it is in the interest of justice,
transfer the matter to the Tenth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. In re
Cline, 531 F.3d at 1252. The factors to be
2
considered in deciding whether a transfer is in the interest of
justice include whether the claims would be time barred if
filed anew in the proper forum, whether the claims alleged
are likely to have merit, and whether the claims were filed in
good faith or if, on the other hand, it was clear at the time of
filing that the court lacked the requisite jurisdiction.
Id. at 1251. When the claims being raised in the second or successive application
clearly do not meet the statutory requirements set forth in § 2244(b)(2), “a district court
does not abuse its discretion if it concludes it is not in the interest of justice to transfer
the matter.” See id. at 1252.
The three claims Mr. Gomez raises in the instant action are not based on either a
new rule of constitutional law or newly discovered evidence as required pursuant to §
2244(b)(2). Therefore, the Court finds that a transfer is not in the interest of justice for
that reason alone. See id.
Consideration of the other relevant factors also supports this conclusion.
Although it appears that the claims Mr. Gomez seeks to raise would be time-barred if
filed anew in the proper forum, it also appears that the claims would be time-barred
even if Mr. Gomez had sought proper authorization prior to filing in this Court. In
addition, there is no indication that the claims Mr. Gomez seeks to raise have any merit.
Finally, it was clear when the instant action was filed that this Court lacks jurisdiction
because the prior habeas corpus action Mr. Gomez filed in this Court was dismissed as
time-barred less than one year ago. As a result, the Court finds that a transfer of the
instant action to the Tenth Circuit is not in the interest of justice. Instead, the action will
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any
3
appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis
status will be denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369
U.S. 438 (1962). If Applicant files a notice of appeal he also must pay the full $455
appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App.
P. 24. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the habeas corpus application (ECF No. 5) is denied and the
action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability will issue because
Applicant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied without prejudice to the filing of a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 29th day of
November
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
4
, 2012.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?