Winn v. Pierce et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 2/5/18. (sar)

Case 1:16-cv-00977-GMS Document 8 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 146

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
STEPHEN R. WINN,
Petitioner,
V.

)
)
)
)
)

DANA METZGER, Warden,
and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STA TE OF DELAWARE,
Respondents.

Civil Action No. 16-977-GMS

)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
I.

BACKGROUND
In February 2002, a Delaware Superior Court jury convicted petitioner Stephen Winn of

first degree rape, first degree kidnaping, second degree assault, terroristic threatening, and
criminal contempt. He was sentenced to 47 years in prison. See Winn v. Phelps, 2009 WL
363906, at* 1 (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2009). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his convictions
and sentence on direct appeal. Id.
In February 2009, this court denied Winn's first petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after determining that his claims for relief were either meritless or
procedurally barred. See Winn v. Phelps, 2009 WL 363906 (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2009). Thereafter,
in 2010, Winn filed another petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
which the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it constituted an unauthorized second
or successive habeas petition. See Winn v. Phelps, Civ. A. No. 10-508-GMS, Order (D. Del. July
7, 2010). The Third Circuit affirmed that decision. See Winn v. State, C.A. No. 10-3321, Order
(3d Cir. Dec. 9, 2010).
In 2016, Winn filed the habeas petition presently pending before the court, which

Case 1:16-cv-00977-GMS Document 8 Filed 02/06/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 147

challenges his 2002 convictions. (D.I. 1) He filed a motion to amend the petition in May 2017.
(D.I. 5)

II.

DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(l ), 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). Notably, a habeas
petition is not considered second or successive simply because it follows a prior petition. See

Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 944 (2007). Rather, a habeas petition is classified as
second or successive within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 if a prior petition has been decided
on the merits, the prior and new petitions challenge the same conviction, and the new petition
asserts a claim that was, or could have been, raised in a prior habeas petition. See Benchoff v.

Colleran, 404 F.3d 812, 817 (3d Cir. 2005); In re Olabode, 325 F.3d 166, 169-73 (3d Cir. 2003).
III.

DISCUSSION
After reviewing the record, the court concludes that Winn has filed another second or

successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244. The denial of Winn's first petition was an
adjudication on the merits for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), and the instant petition
challenges the same 2002 convictions and asserts a claim that either was or could have been
asserted in his first petition. See Murray v. Greiner, 394 F.3d 78, 80 (2d Cir. 2005); Benchoff,
404 F.3d at 817-18.
The record reveals that Winn did not obtain permission from the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals before filing his pending habeas request. In addition, since nothing in the instant
2

Case 1:16-cv-00977-GMS Document 8 Filed 02/06/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 148

petition comes close to satisfying the substantive requirements for a second or successive petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), the court concludes that it would not be in the interest of justice to
transfer this case to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Accordingly, the court will
dismiss the instant unauthorized second or successive petition for lack of jurisdiction. See 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(l); 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.").

III.

CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the court will deny Winn's § 2254 petition for lack of

jurisdiction. Having determined to dismiss the petition, the court will dismiss as moot Winn's
motion to amend the petition. (D.I. 5) The court also declines to issue a certificate of
appealability because Winn has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 22.2 (2011); United States v. Eyer,
113 F .3d 4 70 (3d Cir. 1997). A separate order will be entered.

µ5, i~, (
DATE

3