SCHULER v. SUPERINTENDENT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
ENTRY Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - This unauthorized second or successive action for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Schuler's petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. The action will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/22/2016. Copy sent to Petitioner via US Mail. (GSO)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
WENDY KNIGHT, Superintendent,
Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
This unauthorized second or successive action for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254(a) is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. This disposition is compelled by the
following facts and circumstances:
Petitioner Joseph Schuler is a state prisoner who challenges the validity of a
disciplinary proceeding identified as No. CIC 15-12-194. A previous habeas challenge to this same
disciplinary proceeding was docketed as No. 1:16-cv-631-SEB-DKL and was dismissed with
prejudice on September 7, 2016 based on the Court’s finding that the challenged disciplinary
proceeding was free from constitutional error. The present action was commenced based on the
treatment of a motion for relief from judgment in No. 1:16-cv-631-SEB-DKL.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), this Court has no jurisdiction to hear a second or
successive habeas petition without authorization from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152–53 (2007). This statute “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), and “‘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); 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 foregoing restriction is applicable to habeas petitions challenging a prison
disciplinary proceeding, just as they are applicable to habeas petitioners challenging convictions
of underlying criminal conduct. Harris v. Cotton, 296 F.3d 578, 579 (7th Cir. 2002).
A “prisoner is entitled to one clean shot at establishing his entitlement to relief in a
federal habeas corpus proceeding.” Pavlovsky v. VanNatta, 431 F.3d 1063, 1064 (7th Cir. 2005).
The petitioner took that shot in No. 1:16-cv-631-SEB-DKL. He has neither shown nor alleged that
the requisite authorization for an additional challenge has been issued.
With No. 1:16-cv-631-SEB-DKL having been adjudicated on the merits, and in the
absence of authorization for the present filing from the Court of Appeals, the Court lacks
jurisdiction to consider the petition for writ of habeas corpus. And with jurisdiction lacking, the
Court has no choice but to note that fact and dismiss the action. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a
Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998)(“‘Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when
it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and
dismissing the cause.’”) (quoting Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868)).
Schuler’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. The action will be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction, and judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: December 22, 2016
PENDLETON - CIF
CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
5124 West Reformatory Road
PENDLETON, IN 46064
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?