PRINGLE v. STATE OF INDIANA et al

Filing 6

Order - Dismissing Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Lack of Jurisdiction. Roger Pringle brought this action alleging that he is in custody unlawfully pursuant to a negotiated guilty plea in Indiana case number 03D01-1109-FD-5086. He filed a petition on September 18, 2019, dkt. #1 , and an amended petition on September 27, 2019, dkt. #4 . Mr. Pringle already has brought a 2254 habeas petition in this Court challenging the same conviction. That petition was denied as procedurally defaulted. Pringle v. Warden, No. 1:18-cv-03200-RLY- DLP, dkt. 28 (Dec. 17, 2018). 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). There is no indication that Mr. Pringle has obtained leave from the Seventh Circuit to file this successive petition. Accordingly, this action is dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Pringle must seek authorization from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals before this Court may consider his petition. All pending motions are vacated. (See Order.) Copy to Petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/7/2019.(NAD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ROGER PRINGLE,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF INDIANA, et al.
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:19-cv-03961-TWP-MJD

Order Dismissing Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Lack of Jurisdiction
Roger Pringle brought this action alleging that he is in custody unlawfully pursuant to a
negotiated guilty plea in Indiana case number 03D01-1109-FD-5086. He filed a petition on
September 18, 2019, dkt. 1, and an amended petition on September 27, 2019, dkt. 4. Mr. Pringle
already has brought a § 2254 habeas petition in this Court challenging the same conviction. That
petition was denied as procedurally defaulted. Pringle v. Warden, No. 1:18-cv-03200-RLY-DLP,
dkt. 28 (Dec. 17, 2018) (Unpub. Order).
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 Altman v. Benik, 337 F.3d 764, 766 (7th Cir. 2003). 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). Indeed, a district
court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a second or successive petition. In re Page,
170 F.3d 659, 661 (7th Cir. 1999). The “district court must dismiss a second or successive petition,
without awaiting any response from the government, unless the court of appeals has given approval
for the filing.” Page, 170 F.3d at 661. There is no indication that Mr. Pringle has obtained leave

from the Seventh Circuit to file this successive petition. Accordingly, this action is dismissed for
a lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Pringle must seek authorization from the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals before this Court may consider his petition. All pending motions are vacated.
The Court notes that Mr. Pringle styled his original petition as a “Motion Filing Civil
Procedure Claim for Relief. Rule 8(a).” Dkt. 1. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides the requirements to state a claim for relief. If Mr. Pringle seeks to file a civil complaint
instead of a habeas corpus petition, he must do so in a separate action. But the Court reminds him
that he has amassed three “strikes” and so may not proceed in forma pauperis in a non-habeas civil
action unless he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see
also Pringle v. Zatecky, No. 1:18-cv-02188-RLY-DLP, dkt. 3 (July 19, 2018) (Unpub. Order)
(identifying strikes).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 10/7/2019

Distribution:
ROGER PRINGLE
199010
WESTVILLE – CF
WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
5501 South 1100 West
WESTVILLE, IN 46391