Curry v. Turco

Filing 4

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ORDER entered. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 08-11622 9/24/2008 Memorandum and Order)(PSSA 5)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________________
)
WILLIAM CURRY
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
Civil Action No.
v.
)
18-10403-ADB
)
MARCO TURCO,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
ORDER
BURROUGHS, J.
1. Petitioner William Curry’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby ALLOWED.
2. The petition and this action are hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, where it “plainly appears from the
petition…that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” The present petition is an
unauthorized second or successive 28 U.S.C. §2254 petition which must be dismissed under 28
U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(A) or transferred to the First Circuit. See Gautier v. Wall, 620 F.3d 58, 61 (1st
Cir.2010) (holding district court lacked jurisdiction to consider second or successive petition
without authorization) (citing Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007) (“The long and short
of it is that [petitioner] neither sought nor received authorization from the Court of Appeals before
filing his . . . petition, a ‘second or successive’ petition challenging his custody, and so the District
Court was without jurisdiction to entertain it.”); 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A); and First Circuit L.R.
22.1(e). Petitioner failed to inform the Court that this is his sixth1 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition

1
  All of the petitions were dismissed. See Curry v. Ficco, C.A. 01-11921-RGS, Curry v. Ficco,

C.A. 02-12297-DPW, Curry v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, C.A. 04-12442-MEL; Curry v.
Spencer, C.A. 07-10105-WGY, and Curry v. Spencer, 08-11622-WGY.  

attempting to vacate his 1998 child sexual assault convictions. On September 24, 2008, petitioner’s
fifth 28 U.S.C. §2254 petition was dismissed, and as part of that order the Court warned him about
filing further unauthorized Section 2254 petitions:
Given Curry’s repeated filings of habeas petitions under § 2254
challenging his 1998 state convictions in spite of the various Court
Orders finding that the District Court lack jurisdiction over his
successive petitions, this Court finds that at this time, Curry is
abusing the writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, he is hereby
WARNED that he could be subject to sanctions, including an Order
enjoining him from filing further pleadings or cases in this Court
absent prior permission of a judicial officer, should he continue to
file § 2254 habeas petitions challenging his 1998 conviction. Curry
is prohibited from filing any further § 2254 habeas petitions
challenging his 1998 state court convictions unless he first receives
permission from the First Circuit Court of Appeals to do so.
Curry v. Spencer, 08-11622, ECF No. 3, pp 5-6 (copy attached). Petitioner is, once again,
challenging his 1998 convictions, but apparently neither sought, nor received permission to file a
second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254. This Court has no jurisdiction, and
dismisses the petition rather than transfer the petition to the First Circuit.
3.

The Court does not sanction the petitioner, but he is again WARNED that any

further filing of unauthorized Section 2254 petitions may result in sanctions.
4.

The Clerk is directed to enter an order of dismissal.

So Ordered.
/s/ Allison D. Burroughs_______
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 4, 2018

2