Washington v. USA
Filing
6
ORDER: As stated in the attached ruling, petitioner's habeas petition (Doc. # 1 ) is a second or successive petition. See United States v. Washington, 2014 WL 2566068. Petitioner has not attached authorization from the Second Circuit to file a s econd or successive petition in the district court. When a petitioner files an unauthorized second or successive federal habeas petition in the district court, the district court is required to transfer that petition to the court of appeals. See Torr es v. Senkowski, 316 F.3d 147, 151 (2d Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for consideration whether the claims raised in this petition should be considered by this Court. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 3/17/2017. (Townsend, D.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
RONNIE WASHINGTON,
Petitioner,
v.
No. 3:17-cv-00101 (JAM)
USA,
Respondent.
RULING AND ORDER OF TRANSFER
Petitioner Ronnie Washington was charged in this Court with conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute crack cocaine. He pled guilty, and the Court (Burns, J.) imposed a 20-year
prison sentence, based in part on the finding that petitioner was a career offender. See 3:10-cr227-JAM-35, Doc. #813 at 22. He is currently confined at McKean federal correctional
institution in Bradford, Pennsylvania. Petitioner now files a second pro se petition to correct his
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
In January 2014, petitioner brought a pro se petition challenging his sentence under
section 2255, in which he argued, among other things, that the Court had erred in finding his
earlier state court convictions to be predicate offenses under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines’
“career offender” provisions. See United States v. Washington, 2014 WL 2566068 (D. Conn.
2014) (Burns, J.). The Court evaluated this petition on the merits and ultimately denied it. Ibid.
In May 2016, petitioner sought permission from the Second Circuit to file another motion under
section 2255 in this Court; the Second Circuit denied his request. See 3:14-cv-114-EBB Doc. #5
(D. Conn.); Washington v. United States, No. 16-1477 (2d Cir. 2016).
In January of this year, petitioner filed the present motion under section 2255. Doc. #1.
This petition raises distinct claims from those petitioner raised in his request to the Second
Circuit last year. The current petition centers on the effect that Mathis v. United States, 136 S.
1
Ct. 2243 (2016) may have on the validity of petitioner’s sentence. Mathis was handed down on
June 23, 2016, after petitioner filed his request in the Second Circuit. See Washington, No. 161477 (2d Cir.).
Petitioner may not bring this claim before again seeking approval in the Second Circuit.
Before a petitioner may bring a “second or successive” habeas petition, he must “move in the
appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the
application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). A petition is considered “second or successive” when
an earlier petition was decided “on the merits.” See Murray v. Greiner, 394 F.3d 78, 80–81 (2d
Cir. 2005).
This habeas petition is “second or successive” because petitioner’s first federal habeas
petition was decided on the merits. See United States v. Washington, 2014 WL 2566068.
Petitioner has not attached authorization from the Second Circuit to file a second or successive
petition in the district court. When a petitioner files an unauthorized second or successive federal
habeas petition in the district court, the district court is required to transfer that petition to the
court of appeals. See Torres v. Senkowski, 316 F.3d 147, 151 (2d Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit for consideration whether the claims raised in this petition should
be considered by this Court.
It is so ordered.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 17th day of March 2017.
/s/ Jeffrey Alker Meyer
Jeffrey Alker Meyer
United States District Judge
2
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?