Bonds v. Superintendent

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER: The Petition 1 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 10/4/2016. (lhc)(cc: Bonds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
JERRY A. BONDS,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.: 3:16-CV-652-TLS

OPINION AND ORDER
Jerry A. Bonds, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1998 plea-based conviction and sentence in Marion County
Superior Court in Case No. 49G02-9807-CF-107714. In Bonds v. Superintendent, 3:08-CV-320
(N.D. Ind. filed July 8, 2008), Bonds challenged this same 1999 conviction. His petition was
denied in June 2009. (Id., ECF No. 7.) Bonds appealed, but his request for a certificate of
appealability was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. (Id., ECF Nos.
33–34.)
This court lacks jurisdiction to hear an unauthorized successive habeas corpus petition.
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007). As stated above, Bonds already filed a federal
habeas petition challenging his 1998 conviction. Regardless of whether the claims he is
attempting to present are new or the same as those previously presented, 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. § 2244(b)(1).
Under certain circumstances new claims may be presented, however:
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).
Bonds has not obtained an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
permitting him to proceed with 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).
For the reasons set forth above, the Petition [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED on October 4, 2016.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION

2