DOUGLAS v. SUPERINTENDENT

Filing 3

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying Certificate of Appealability - This action is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. The court denies a certificate of appealability. (See Entry.) Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/15/2013.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

CARRIE DOUGLAS,
v.

Petitioner,

SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:13-cv-95-JMS-DKL

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus and Denying Certificate of Appealability
For the reasons explained in this Entry, the petition of Carrie Douglas 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.
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 Carrie Douglas
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) fails this test.

Petitioner Douglas seeks a writ of habeas corpus with respect to his 1988
convictions in Marion County for the offenses of rape and confinement. Douglas is
confined within the Southern District of Indiana. In this petition, he alleges that he
was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and in his direct appeal.
In Douglas v. Clark, 991 F.2d 799 (7th Cir. 1993) (Table), the Court of
Appeals affirmed the denial of Douglas' petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in No. 91-C-559.
The decision in the case which was appealed reached a decision on the merits of
Douglas’ claims, as did the appellate decision itself. The present action is therefore
a second or successive habeas petition. In this situation, a prospective habeas
applicant must first obtain relief from the Court of Appeals, a requirement of 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b). The provision has been described as "self-executing." Nunez v.
United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). This means, here, that a district
court lacks all jurisdiction over such a matter, until and unless permission to file is
granted by the Court of Appeals. Id. The petition here shows no indication that such
permission has been sought or granted.
This action is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment
consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
C.
Douglas has twice previously made this attempt in this court, in No. IP 971093-C-H/G and in No. 1:04-cv-01373-SEB-VSS. Each case was summarily
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for the same reasons explained above. Douglas will
fare no better in the future unless he complies with the procedure of 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b).
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
Douglas 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.

03/15/2013
Date: _________________

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Carrie Douglas
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
6908 S. Old U.S. Hwy 41
P.O. Box 1111
Carlisle, IN 47838