RESTRICTED - ACCEPT NO DOCUMENTS v. Superintendent

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE for want of jurisdiction. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 11/14/11. cc: pltf (kjp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
KASHMIR LaJUAN BRAY ,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:11 CV 390

OPINION and ORDER
Kashmir LaJuan Bray, a pro se prisoner, filed this habeas corpus petition
attempting to challenge his 2006 child molestation conviction by the Lake Superior
Court: State v. Bray, 45G04-0509-FA-48 (judgment entered April 4, 2006). This is not the
first time that Bray has brought a habeas corpus petition challenging that conviction. In
Bray v. Superintendent, 2:10-CV-302 (N.D.Ind. filed July 26, 2010), Bray sought to
challenge the same conviction he is challenging here. The court found that the petition
was untimely and final judgment was entered August 9, 2010.
Regardless of whether the claims that Bray is now attempting to present are new
or whether they were presented in his previous petition, this petition must be dismissed
because this court lacks jurisdiction to consider them. “A claim presented in a second or
successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior
application shall be dismissed.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). Therefore any claims previously
presented must be dismissed. Any claim not previously presented must also be
dismissed because “before a second or successive application permitted by this section

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). Here, Bray has not obtained an order from the Seventh Circuit permitting
him to proceed with any previously unpresented claims. “A district court must dismiss
a second or successive petition . . . unless the court of appeals has given approval for its
filing.” Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996) (emphasis in original).
Therefore any previously unpresented claims must also be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
Date: November 14, 2011
s/ James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT