Wells v. Superintendent
Filing
2
OPINION AND ORDER dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 11/2/2012. (kds)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
EUGENE WELLS,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:12 CV 623
OPINION and ORDER
Eugene Wells, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
challenging his 1989 conviction for attempted rape, robbery, and related offenses in
Tippecanoe County. (DE #1.) In 2006, Wells filed a habeas petition challenging this
same conviction. See Wells v. Superintendent, 1:06-CV-479 (S.D. Ind. filed Mar. 23, 2006).
That petition was dismissed as untimely in June 2006. Id., (DE # 11). Wells did not
appeal. Id. He now seeks to challenge the conviction again in the present petition. (DE
#1.)
This court lacks jurisdiction to hear an unauthorized second or “successive”
habeas petition challenging the same conviction.1 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Burton v.
Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), any claim he
For purposes of determining whether a petition is successive, courts do not
“count” previous petitions that were dismissed for curable technical reasons, such as failing
to pay the filing fee or filing in the wrong court. See Altman v. Benik, 337 F. 764, 766 (7th Cir.
2003). However, a “prior untimely petition does count because a statute of limitations bar
is not a curable technical or procedural deficiency but rather operates as an irremediable
defect barring consideration of the petitioner’s substantive claims.” Id.
1
previously presented must be dismissed. To the extent he has any new claims, he is
required to “move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the
district court to consider the application” before he can raise them in this court. 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). There is no indication that Wells has obtained an order from the
Seventh Circuit permitting him to proceed with any new claims. Indeed, Wells does not
acknowledge that he previously filed a federal habeas petition, and instead falsely
states that he did not previously challenge his conviction in federal court. (See DE #1 at
9.) “A district court must dismiss a second or successive petition, without awaiting any
response from the government, 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).
Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed.
For these reasons, the petition (DE #1) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
Date: November 2, 2012
s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?