Biggins v. State of Delaware et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 12/10/2015. (cna)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS,
Petitioner,

v.
STATE OF DELA WARE,
Respondents.

)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 14-844-GMS

MEMORANDUM
I. BACKGROUND
Pending before the court is James Arthur Biggins' "petition for extraordinary writ" under
a miscarriage of justice. (D.1. 1) The court construes the petition to be Biggins' seventh
application for federal habeas relief filed pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the following reasons,
the petition is denied.

II. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), if a habeas petitioner erroneously files a second or
successive habeas petition "in a district court without the permission of a court of appeals, the
district court's only option is to dismiss the petition or transfer it to the court of appeals pursuant
to 28 U.S.c. § 1631." Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 139 (3d Cir. 2002). A habeas
application is classified as second or successive within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 if a
prior application has been decided on the merits, the prior and new applications challenge the
same conviction, and the new application asserts a claim that could have been raised in a prior
habeas application. Benchoffv. Colleran, 404 F.3d 812,817 (3d Cir. 2005); In re Olabode, 325
F.3d 166, 169-73 (3d Cir. 2003).

Although Biggins' has titled his document as a "petition for extraordinary writ," and
asserts that his request should not be considered a second or success habeas application (D.L 3),
Biggins' instant filings actually constitute a challenge to his 1997 conviction. He has already
requested, and has been denied, habeas relief with respect to the same underlying conviction on
six prior occasions. See Biggins v. Carroll, Civ. A. No. 99-188-GMS, Mem. Order (D. Del.
Sept. 23, 2002); Biggins v. Carroll, Civ. A. No. 03-273-GMS, Mem. Order (D. Del. Apr. 9,
2003); Biggins v. Phelps et. al., Civ. A. No. 09-741-GMS, Mem. & Order (D. Del. Mar. 3,
2010); Biggins v. Phelps, Civ. A. No. 10-292-GMS, Order (D. Del. Apr. 30,2010); Biggins v.
Phelps, Civ. A. No. 1O-724-GMS, Mem. & Order (D. Del. Sept. 28, 2010); Biggins v. Phelps,

Civ. A. No. 12-586-GMS, Mem. & Order (D. DeL Mar. 4, 2013). The record reveals that
Biggins has not obtained permission from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to file the instant
habeas request. Accordingly, the court will dismiss the instant petition as a second or successive
habeas petition. See 28 U.S.c. § 2244(b)(1); Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 139 (3d Cir.
2002)(holding that when a second or successive habeas petition is erroneously filed "in a district
court without the permission of the court of appeals, the district court's only option is to dismiss
the petition or transfer it to the court of appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1631."). The court will
also decline to issue a certificate of appealability because Biggins has failed to make a
"substantial showing of the denial ofa constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 3d Cir.
L.A.R. 22.2 (2008); United States v. Eyer, 113 F.3d 470 (3d Cir. 1997).

III. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the court will deny Biggins' petition for extraordinary
writ because it constitutes a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244. A

2

separate Order will be entered.

IJ k · II},
DATE

,1..0

1.5

3