Curl v. Idaho, State of

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM ORDER Finding as moot 9 MOTION to Change Venue filed by Loyal C Curl,5 MOTION to Change Venue filed by Loyal C Curl.. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )

Download PDF
Curl v. Idaho, State of Doc. 11 Case 1:06-cv-00220-EJL Document 11 Filed 06/13/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Respondent. ) _________________________________) LOYAL C. CURL, Case No. CV-06-220-S-EJL MEMORANDUM ORDER The Court now reviews Petitioner Loyal C. Curl's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which was originally filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and transferred to this Court on jurisdictional grounds. Upon a review of the docket, the Court has determined that Petitioner currently has pending before United States Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams a 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging the same conviction and sentence. See Curl v. Blades, CV05-115-S-MHW. Petitioner filed his second Petition after the effective date of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") (April 24, 1996). Therefore, this Court's jurisdiction to hear the second Petition is governed by AEDPA's rules regarding second or successive habeas corpus petitions. The adoption of 2244(b) as a part of AEDPA forecloses prisoners from filing multiple habeas corpus petitions without satisfying strict statutory requirements. ORDER 1 Case 1:06-cv-00220-EJL Document 11 Filed 06/13/2006 Page 2 of 2 Before a petitioner may file a second or successive petition, he must make a "prima facie showing" to the Court of Appeals that it would satisfy 28 U.S.C. 2244(b), and receive authorization from the Court of Appeals to proceed in the District Court. Thompson v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 924 (9th Cir. 1998). The District Court has no jurisdiction to hear the merits of a second or successive petition unless the Court of Appeals has granted a petitioner permission to file such a petition. See 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)) (stating that district courts lack jurisdiction to consider unauthorized successive petitions). Here, because Petitioner already has a pending Habeas Corpus Petition, his new Petition is a second or successive Petition. Therefore, he cannot bring it without authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. ORDER NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motions for Change of Venue (Docket Nos. 5 & 9) are MOOT. DATED: June 13, 2006 Honorable Edward J. Lodge U. S. District Judge ORDER 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?