FORTE v. SUPERINTENDENT

Filing 4

ENTRY AND ORDER Dismissing Action. The habeas petition shows on its face that Mr. Forte is not entitled to the relief he seeks. The action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Copy mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/28/2014.(MAC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

DAMON FORTE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-454-TWP-DKL

Entry and Order Dismissing Action
I.
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Damon Forte (“Mr. Forte’s”) petition for
habeas corpus relief challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. ISP 12-030030 by trafficking. This habeas challenge was previously docketed as No. 1:13-cv-01106-TWPDKL and was concluded through issuance of final judgment dismissing the action with prejudice
on January 2, 2014. Mr. Forte’s first post-judgment motion was denied based on the guidelines
established in Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005). In Gonzalez, the Supreme Court held
that a state prisoner may not rely on Rule 60(b) to raise a claim in federal habeas proceedings
that would otherwise be barred as second or successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Accordingly,
Mr. Forte’s second post-judgment action was treated as a new habeas filing and resulted in the
docketing shown above. The action is now before the court for its preliminary review pursuant to
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States District Court.
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 (7th Cir. 2000).

As the foregoing narrative shows, the present action, for which no authorization from the
Court of Appeals has been supplied, must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as an
unauthorized second or successive habeas application. Harris v. Cotton, 296 F.3d 578, 579 (7th
Cir. 2002) (section 2244(b) of 28 U.S.C. applies to § 2254 petitions challenging sanctions
imposed in prison disciplinary proceedings); see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153
(2007) (stating that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the habeas petition
because the petitioner failed to receive the required authorization from the Court of Appeals and
had “twice brought claims contesting the same custody imposed by the same judgment of the
state court.”).
The habeas petition shows on its face that Mr. Forte is not entitled to the relief he seeks.
The action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
II.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

04/28/2014
Date: _________________

Distribution:

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Damon Forte
# 988357
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362