Penoyer v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

Filing 6

ORDER that Penoyer's petition is denied as successive. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment against Petitioner Penoyer and to close this case. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 1/23/2007. (SM)

Download PDF
Penoyer v. Secretary, Department of Corrections Doc. 6 Case 8:07-cv-00114-EAK-MAP Document 6 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION ALLEN LLOYD PENOYER, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. ORDER On April 24, 1996, the President signed into law several habeas corpus amendments, one of which places limits on the filing of second or successive petitions. The amendment provides in pertinent part that before a second or successive application for habeas corpus relief is filed in the district court, the applicant shall 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). Although Petitioner filed the instant petition after the enactment of the aforedescribed amendment, and the present petition is clearly a second or successive petition, Petitioner has not shown that he has applied to the court of appeals for an order authorizing this court to consider his application. Accordingly, the Court orders: Case No. 8:07-cv-114-T-17MAP Dockets.Justia.com Case 8:07-cv-00114-EAK-MAP Document 6 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 2 of 2 That Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. The Clerk is directed to close this case and to send Petitioner the Eleventh Circuit's application form for second or successive habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment against petitioner Penoyer and to close this case. ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on January 23, 2007. Allen Lloyd Penoyer -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?