Wilson (ID 47542) v. Pryor et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Petitioner's motion 2 to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. This matter is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 1/15/2014. (Mailed to pro se party Craig S. Wilson by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

CRAIG S. WILSON,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 14-3003-SAC

REX PRYOR, et al.,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a prisoner in state custody. Petitioner challenges
his 1988 conviction of two counts of aggravated criminal sodomy.
This matter is a successive application for relief under § 2254.
Petitioner presented an earlier, unsuccessful challenge to this
conviction in 1991. Wilson v. Hannigan, et al., 1992 WL 333149 (D.Kan.
1992).
A second petition filed by petitioner in 2001, Wilson v. McKune,
et al., Case No. 01-3118, was transferred by the court to the U.S.Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
“The filing of a second or successive § 2254 application is
tightly constrained by provisions of the AEDPA.” Case v. Hatch, 731
F.3d 1015, 1026 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, ---U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 269,
(2013). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), a petitioner presenting
a successive application for habeas corpus relief must seek prior
authorization in the appropriate court of appeals. Unless such
authorization is granted, the district court has no jurisdiction to
consider the filing. In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir.
2008)(per curiam).

The district court may transfer an unauthorized successive
application to the court of appeals if it is in the interest of justice
to do so. In re Rains, 659 F.3d 1274, 1275 (10th Cir. 2011)(per curiam).
In making the decision whether to transfer, the district court should
consider whether the claims would be time-barred if filed, whether
the claims are likely to be meritorious, and whether the claims were
filed in good faith. Cline, 531 F.3d at 1251.
In this case, petitioner’s claims arise from a conviction that
occurred over twenty years ago and are time-barred. Likewise,
because petitioner previously filed a second application for habeas
corpus in 2001 and yet failed to seek prior authorization in his
current filing, the court cannot find the claims were filed in good
faith. The court concludes the transfer of this matter to the court
of appeals would not further the interests of justice.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED petitioner’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this matter is dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the petitioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 15th day of January, 2014, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge