Williams (ID 62520) v. Snyder

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL ENTERED: This matter is dismissed as a second or successive application for habeas corpus. No certificate of appealibility will issue. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 09/24/19. Mailed to pro se party Otis Leavell Williams by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

OTIS LEAVELL WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 18-3098-SAC

PAUL SNYDER,
Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter is before the Court on a petition for habeas corpus
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner proceeds pro se and in forma
pauperis.
The Court has examined the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Habeas Corpus and finds the present petition is a second
or successive application for relief.
Background
Petitioner challenges his conviction in the District Court of
Sedgwick County, Kansas, in Case No. 05-CR-1796. That conviction was
the subject of an earlier habeas corpus petition filed in this Court
in Case No. 18-3052-SAC. The Court dismissed that matter on November
21, 2018, as time-barred. Petitioner did not appeal.
Analysis
This matter is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act (AEDPA). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), enacted as part of
the AEDPA, “the filing of a second or successive § 2254 application
is tightly constrained[].” Case v. Hatch, 731 F.3d 1015, 1026 (10th
Cir. 2013). “Before a court can consider a second claim, an applicant

must first ‘move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order
authorizing the district court to consider the application.’” Id.
(quoting 28 U.S.C. §2244 (b)(3)(A)). “Section 2244’s gate-keeping
requirements are jurisdictional in nature and must be considered prior
to the merits of a § 2254 petition.” Id. at 1027 (citing Panetti v.
Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 942-47 (2007)); see also In re Cline, 531
F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008)(“A district court does not have
jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive … § 2254
claim until this court has granted the required authorization.”).
Where, as here, a petitioner presents a successive petition
without the prior authorization required by statute, the district
court may consider whether the matter should be transferred to the
court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, rather than dismissed, if
the transfer would be in the interest of justice. See In re Cline,
531 F.3d at 1252.
Because petitioner’s earlier application, presented in Case No.
18-3052-SAC, was dismissed as time-barred, the Court concludes the
present matter should be dismissed rather than transferred. The
dismissal of this matter does not prevent petitioner from seeking
authorization from the Tenth Circuit.
Finally, because this matter is dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction, the Court declines to enter a certificate of
appealability.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED this matter is dismissed
as

a

second

or

successive

application

certificate of appealability will issue.

for

habeas

corpus.

No

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 24th day of September, 2019, at Topeka, Kansas.

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