MEDARIS v. STATE OF INDIANA et al

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 fr om the Court of Appeals, this action must now be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis 3 is granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. The court therefore denies a certificate of appealability ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 12/1/2014.(DW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
KEITH L. MEDARIS, SR.,
Petitioner,
v.
KEITH BUTTS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No: 1:14-cv-01886-WTL-MJD

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus and Denying Certificate of Appealability
For the reasons explained in this Entry, the petition of Keith Medaris, Sr. for a writ of
habeas corpus must be denied and the action dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In addition, the
court finds that a certificate of appealability should not issue and the inclusion of the State of
Indiana as a co-respondent is stricken.
I.
A.
Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears
legally insufficient on its face. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). This authority is
conferred by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts,
which provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district court judge, "[i]f it plainly
appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal and
cause the petitioner to be notified." See Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411, 414 (7th Cir. 1993).
This is an appropriate case for such a disposition.

B.
“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 Keith Medaris, Sr. for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) fails this test.
Medaris is serving a sentence following his conviction for the December 2003 murder of
Wilber Smith. Medaris v. State, No. 49A04-0411-CR-620 (Ind.Ct.App. Sept. 6, 2005). That is
the conviction he challenged in a prior action for habeas corpus relief, docketed as No. 1:12-cv01051-RLY-DKL. That is the same convictions challenged in this case. The prior habeas action
was denied in an Order issued on August 21, 2013.
Medaris 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. That earlier
habeas action was dismissed with prejudice on August 21, 2013. The dismissal with prejudice is
evident from the judgment in that case and from the basis of the dismissal as the expiration of the
statute of limitations prior to the filing of the habeas petition on July 30, 2012. See, e.g., Altman
v. Benik, 337 F.3d 764, 766 (7th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (“We hold today that a prior untimely
[28 U.S.C. § 2254] petition does count [as an adjudication on the merits] because a statute of
limitations bar is not a curable technical or procedural deficiency. . . .”).
The same petition described herein has been submitted to the Court of Appeals and
docketed as No. 14-3526. On November 25, 2014 the Court of Appeals denied Mendaris leave to
file a second or successive petition for collateral review.
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).
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. U.S., 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. The petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis [3] 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 Medaris has failed
to show that reasonable jurists would find “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.
_______________________________
Date: 12/01/14

Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
KEITH L. MEDARIS, Sr.
891263
Pendleton Correctional Facility
Electronic Filing Participant – Court Only