GADDIE v. KNIGHT

Filing 4

ENTRY Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying Certificate of Appealability - With the prior habeas petition having been adjudicated on the merits, and in the absence of authorization for the present filing from the Court of Appeals, this action must now be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Gaddie's motion to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is GRANTED. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. The court therefore DENIES a certificate of appealability. (copy to Petitioner via US Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/6/2011. (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

ROBERT ALLEN GADDIE,
Petitioner,

v.
STAN KNIGHT,

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:11-cv-1595-JMS-DKL

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus and Denying Certificate of Appealability
I.
“Subject-matter jurisdiction is the first question in every case, and if the
court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction it must proceed no further.” State of Illinois
v. City of Chicago, 137 F.3d 474, 478 (7th Cir. 1998). The petition of Robert Gaddie
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) fails this test and the
action must therefore be dismissed.
Gaddie has filed a prior habeas action in this court, docketed as No. 1:03-cv744-DFH-VSS, challenging his Marion County conviction for unlawful possession of
a firearm by a serious violent felon. The prior habeas action was denied in an Order
issued on February 3, 2004.
Gaddie has now filed another petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he
asserts claims which were or which could have been presented in the first habeas
action. The disposition in No. 1:03-cv-744-DFH-VSS was based on the
determination that the Indiana Court of Appeals provided fair process and engaged
in reasoned, good faith decision-making when it determined that the evidence in
this case was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt. That disposition was
“on the merits” for the purpose of triggering the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b).

When there has already been a decision on the merits in a federal habeas
action, to obtain another round of federal collateral review a petitioner requires
permission from the Court of Appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). See Potts v. United
States, 210 F.3d 770, 770 (7th Cir. 2000). This statute, § 2244(b)(3), "creates a
'gatekeeping' mechanism for the consideration of second or successive [habeas]
applications in the district court." Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996). This
statute "'is an allocation of subject-matter jurisdiction to the court of appeals.'" In re
Page, 170 F.3d 659, 661 (7th Cir. 1999) (quoting Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d
990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996)), opinion supplemented on denial of rehearing en banc, 179
F.3d 1024 (7th Cir. 1999). "'A district court must dismiss a second or successive
petition . . . unless the court of appeals has given approval for the filing.'" Id.
With the prior habeas petition having been adjudicated on the merits, and in
the absence of authorization for the present filing from the Court of Appeals, this
action must now be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Gaddie’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis [2] is granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now
issue.
II.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the
Rules Governing § 2254 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the court finds that
Gaddie has failed to show that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether
the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and
“debatable whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The court therefore denies a certificate of
appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12/06/2011
Date: __________________
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana