Heximer v. Berghuis

Filing 147

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Denying 146 Petitioner's Motion for Emergency Correspondence. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT JAY HEXIMER,
Petitioner,
v.

Civil No. 2:08-CV-14170
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

JEFFREY WOODS,
Respondent.
__________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR EMERGENCY CORRESPONDENCE [DKT. # 146]
This Court denied petitioner’s habeas application brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, but granted
petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Heximer v. Woods, No. 08-CV14170, 2012 WL 899358 (E.D. Mich. March 16, 2012); appeal dism. No. 12-2567
(6th Cir. May 23, 2013); cert. den. 135 S. Ct. 88 (2014); reh. den. 135 S. Ct. 1524
(2015).
On January 15, 2016, this Court denied in part petitioner’s Rule 60(b)
motion for relief from judgment. The Court also transferred the Rule 60(b) motion
for relief from judgment and the motion to amend the complaint to the United
States Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) for authorization to
file a second or successive habeas petition. The Court denied without prejudice
the motions to amend the caption, for release on bail, and for the appointment of

1

Heximer v. Woods, 2:08-CV-14170
counsel. Heximer v. Woods, No. 2:08-CV-14170, 2016 WL 183629 (E.D. Mich.
Jan. 15, 2016)
Petitioner has filed a motion for “emergency correspondence-irreparable
harm and injury.” It is unclear from petitioner’s motion whether he wishes to be
released on bail, whether he asks this Court to reconsider its prior opinions and
orders, or both.
The Court denies without prejudice petitioner’s motion because the Court
does not have the jurisdiction to entertain it in light of the fact that petitioner
essentially filed a successive petition for writ of habeas corpus. A district court
loses jurisdiction over a state prisoner’s habeas petitions when it transfers it to
Court of Appeals on the ground that it is a second or successive petition. Jackson
v. Sloan, 800 F. 3d 260, 261 (6th Cir. 2015). This Court thus lacks jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1631 and 2244(b)(3)(A) to consider petitioner’s
motion to release petitioner on bail or to reconsider its earlier decisions. Id., at
261-62.

2

Heximer v. Woods, 2:08-CV-14170
ORDER
The motion for emergency correspondence [Dkt. # 146] is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: February 8, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon parties/counsel of record on
February 8, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Catherine A. Pickles
Judicial Assistant

3