Govan v. Superintendent

Filing 9

OPINION AND ORDER re 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Kevin L Govan. The court DISMISSES the petition 1 for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/13/2016. (lhc)(cc: Govan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
KEVIN L. GOVAN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.

SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-501 RM

OPINION AND ORDER
Kevin L. Govan, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2005 convictions in Allen County in Case No. 02D04-0411-FB196. (DE 1.) In Govan v. Superintendent, 3:09-CV-547 (N.D. Ind. filed Nov. 20, 2009), Mr.
Govan challenged the same 2005 convictions. This court denied his petition in October
2011. (Id., DE 29.) Mr. Govan appealed, but the court of appeals denied his request for a
certificate of appealability. (Id., DE 49.)
This court has no authority to hear an unauthorized successive habeas corpus
petition. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007). Mr. Govan already filed a federal
habeas petition challenging his 2005 convictions. Regardless of whether the claims he now
wants to present are new or the same as those presented before, the petition must be
dismissed. “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.

-1-

§ 2244(b)(1). New claims can be presented under some circumstances: “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). Mr. Govan hasn’t gotten an order from
the court of appeals allowing him to proceed with (and authorizing this court to decide)
any new claims. “A district court must dismiss a second or successive petition, without
awaiting any response from the [state], 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).
Mr. Govan’s petition must be dismissed.
For the reasons set forth above, the court DISMISSES the petition (DE 1) for lack of
jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: January 13 , 2016

/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge
United States District Court

-2-