GAKUBA v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MAINE

Filing 16

REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re #1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Objections to R&R due by 2/1/2023. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (MFS)

Case 2:23-cv-00009-GZS Document 16 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 3

PageID #: 7111

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
PETER GAKUBA,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF MAINE,
Respondent

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:23-cv-00009-GZS

RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER PRELIMINARY
REVIEW OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner seeks habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from three convictions
in Illinois state court. (Petition, ECF Nos. 1, 8.) Petitioner alleges he has been released
from jail on parole and is residing in Maine.
Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, upon the filing of a
petition, the Court must conduct a preliminary review of the petition, and “must dismiss”
the petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” After a review in accordance with
Rule 4, I recommend the Court dismiss the matter.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner asserts and the record reflects that Petitioner previously filed a request for
habeas relief. Petitioner represents the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
denied his request for habeas relief and denied a certificate of appealability, and that the
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied his appeal and his request for a hearing en

Case 2:23-cv-00009-GZS Document 16 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 3

PageID #: 7112

banc. (See Petition at 18, PageID #: 101, ECF No. 8.) Petitioner contends the first
proceeding is “void ab initio” because of due process violations. (Jurisdiction/Venue
Statement at 1, ECF No. 6.) A review of the decision on Petitioner’s prior habeas petition
reveals that the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois considered the merits of
the petition and denied relief. (Order, Gakuba v. Brannon, No. 3:17-cv-50337, ECF No.
38 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2018.)). Petitioner’s filing in this court, therefore, is a second and
successive request for habeas relief.
In the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), “Congress
established a ‘gatekeeping’ mechanism for the consideration of ‘second or successive
habeas corpus applications’ in the federal courts.” Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S.
637, 641 (1998) (quoting Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996)). Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255(h) and § 2244(b)(3)(A), “Before a second or successive application . . . is
filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for
an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” See also First Circuit
Rule 22.1. “Such authorization is available only when the second or successive petition is
based either on (1) newly discovered evidence that would establish innocence or (2) a new
rule of constitutional law made retroactive on collateral review by the Supreme Court.”
Bucci v. United States, 809 F.3d 23, 25–26 (1st Cir. 2015). The First Circuit has
“interpreted [these provisions] as ‘stripping the district court of jurisdiction over a second
or successive habeas petition unless and until the court of appeals has decreed that it may
go forward.’” Trenkler v. United States, 536 F.3d 85, 96 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting Pratt v.
United States, 129 F.3d 54, 57 (1st Cir. 1997)).
2

Case 2:23-cv-00009-GZS Document 16 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 3

PageID #: 7113

The record lacks any evidence that Petitioner’s second or successive request for
habeas relief has been authorized by the First Circuit or any other federal circuit court. The
Court, therefore, is without jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s request. Accordingly,
dismissal is required.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, an evidentiary hearing is not warranted under
Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. I recommend the Court dismiss
Petitioner’s petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and that the Court deny a
certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within
the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate
judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district
court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen
(14) days of being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 18th day of January, 2023.

3