Swisher v. Superintendent
Filing
9
OPINION AND ORDER denying 8 MOTION to Amend/Correct 7 Clerks Judgment, 6 Opinion and Order filed by Randy Marvin Swisher. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 6/4/2012. (kds)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
RANDY MARVIN SWISHER,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT, WESTVILLE
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO.: 3:12-CV-128-TLS
OPINION AND ORDER
On March 15, 2012, the Petitioner, Randy Marvin Swisher, filed a Petition Under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody [ECF No. 1] challenging
his 2008 convictions in the Porter Superior Court for aggravated battery and battery with a
deadly weapon. This Court reviewed the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases and dismissed it without prejudice for want of jurisdiction because the
Petitioner filed a previous petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the same convictions,
which was denied on the merits. (See Opinion & Order, ECF No. 6.) The Court advised the
Petitioner that if he can obtain leave of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit to file a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254, he may refile
his petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Id. 2.)
The Petitioner has now filed a Motion to Amend Judgment [ECF No. 8] in which he
states that his present petition “is neither a second or successive writ to the one he submitted in
2010 that challenged his conviction under cause number 64DO2-0810-FB-203, HAB. # 3:10CV-229-RL.” (Mot. to Amend J. 3, ECF No. 8.) He argues that the issue in his present habeas
petition “was a constitutional violation of his right to appeal in his post conviction relief case
#64DO2-911-PC-11831 . . . which is a civil case, not part of the direct appeal process.” (Id.)
Absent very narrow circumstances, a person convicted pursuant to the judgment of a state
court may bring only one application for federal collateral relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2244; Felder v.
McVicar, 113 F.3d 696, 697–98 (7th Cir. 1997); Benton v. Washington, 106 F.3d 162, 163 (7th
Cir. 1996); Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996); see Vitrano v. United
States, 643 F.3d 229, 233 (7th Cir. 2011) (discussing the prohibition on second or successive
filings in the context of § 2255). The Petitioner’s post-conviction proceedings deal with the
convictions that form the basis for his earlier habeas petition in 3:10-CV-229-RL, and therefore
his second petition for writ of habeas corpus is a second application for federal collateral relief
on these convictions.
A state prisoner may elect to file a federal habeas petition as soon as he completes his
direct appeal, or he may wait until he has also completed any collateral challenges to his
conviction, such as post-conviction proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) (excluding the
“time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral
review . . . is pending” from the one-year statute of limitations for a person in custody pursuant
to the judgment of a state court to file a habeas petition). But if, as the Petitioner has done, he
files his federal habeas petition before pursuing post-conviction relief, he must obtain leave of a
federal court of appeals before filing a second petition for writ of habeas corpus dealing with
issues arising from his post-conviction proceedings. At the time of the Petitioner’s 2010 habeas
case, he was specifically advised that proceeding with his petition before completing his efforts
at state post-conviction relief would require him to seek leave from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit before he could file a second or successive habeas petition. The
Petitioner responded as follows:
The Petitioner advises the court that he wishes to proceed on the two claims before
the court even though it may preclude him from ever bringing future claims in a
habeas proceeding.
2
(Response to Court Order 1, No. 3:10-CV-229-RL, ECF No. 18.) In 2010, the Petitioner chose to
proceed knowing it would mean he had to seek leave from the Seventh Circuit before filing
another habeas petition.
The Petitioner argues that although his 2010 habeas petition and the petition presently
before the Court are “related at the core,” they are “not intertwined as one is the continuation of
the criminal appeal process, while the other is a civil case.” (Mot. to Amend 4.) Section 2244
makes no such distinction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a) (stating that a district judge shall not be
required to hear a habeas corpus action “inquir[ing] into the detention of a person pursuant to a
judgment of a court of the United States if it appears that the legality of such detention has been
determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior application for a writ of habeas
corpus”); Benton, 106 F.3d at 163 (stating that section 2244 “forbid[s] any ‘second or
successive’ petition for collateral relief without the consent of the court of appeals, which may
be given only in limited circumstances”). The Petitioner has filed a second or successive Petition
without first having obtained authorization from the Seventh Circuit, and this Court therefore has
“no option other than to deny the petition.” Nunez, 96 F.3d at 991 (“A district court must dismiss
a second or successive petition.”).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Petitioner’s Motion to Amend
Judgment [ECF No. 8].
SO ORDERED on June 4, 2012.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
3
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?