Wilburn v. Superintendent

Filing 10

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DISMISSES this case for want of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 1/12/2017. (lhc)(cc: Wilburn)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION ERIC WILBURN, Petitioner, v. Case No. 3:16-CV-328 JVB SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER Eric Wilburn, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition attempting to challenge a prison disciplinary proceeding (ISO 16-01-0010) held at the Indiana State Prison where the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of Disorderly Conduct in violation of B236 on January 27, 2016, and sanctioned him with the loss of 30 days earned credit time. This is not the first time that Wilburn has brought a habeas corpus petition challenging that hearing. In Wilburn v. Superintendent, 3:16-CV-108 (N.D. Ind. filed February 29, 2016), he challenged this same proceeding. In that case, the Court dismissed the petition pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4 because all of the claims were procedural defaulted. As such, this is an unauthorized successive petition over which the Court has no jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). “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). Because Wilburn has not obtained authorization from the Seventh Circuit to file a successive petition, the Court DISMISSES this case for want of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED on January 12, 2017. s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?