Stricklen v. Burts

Filing 6

ORDER denying 5 Motion for Relief from Judgment. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CORNELL STRICKLEN,
Petitioner,
Case No. 14-CV-10567
v.
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan
SHERRY BURT,
Respondent.
_______________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
Proceeding pro se, Petitioner Cornell Stricklen filed this habeas corpus petition
on February 7, 2014 challenging his 2000 Wayne County Circuit Court conviction and
life sentence for first-degree felony murder. On February 25, 2014, the Court
transferred the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as a
“second or successive” habeas petition. On August 28, 2014, the Sixth Circuit denied
Petitioner authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition.
Petitioner now seeks relief from judgment or, in the alternative, adjudication of
an unresolved claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). He asserts
that his first habeas petition, which raised a jurisdictional claim, was not denied on the
merits and thus argues that his subsequent habeas petition – the present one – should

not have been deemed a second or successive petition. He also asserts that his current
habeas claims have merit and should be considered in federal court.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a district court may grant relief
from a final judgment or order only upon a showing of one of the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a
prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is
no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any
other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b).
Petitioner is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b). The Court did not issue a
final judgment in this case, but merely transferred the matter to the Sixth Circuit. The
Sixth Circuit denied Petitioner authorization to proceed on his claims. This Court
does not have authority to overturn that decision, which is essentially what Petitioner
is asking the Court to do through his request to consider his present habeas petition
on the merits. See White v. Carter, 27 F. App’x 312, 313-14 (6th Cir. 2001) (district
2

court lacks authority to reinstate habeas petitioner’s second or successive habeas
petition after appellate court declines to grant leave to file such a petition);
Hargrave-Thomas v. Yukins, 450 F. Supp. 2d 711, 720 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (“This
Court, as an inferior court, is plainly subject to the review of the Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. As such, by its very nature, this Court has
no authority to reconsider the judgment of an appellate court. Restated, the very
essence of the relationship between this Court and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit precludes this Court from altering any decision made by the Court of
Appeals.”).
Moreover, this Court did not err in transferring the habeas petition to the Sixth
Circuit. If Petitioner wishes to challenge his state criminal convictions again, he must
obtain authorization from the Sixth Circuit to file a second or successive habeas
petition before proceeding in the district court on federal habeas review. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1631 and 2244(b)(3)(A). The Sixth Circuit has denied that authorization.
For these reasons, Petitioner’s motion under Rule 60(b) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 30, 2014
Copy to:
Cornell Stricklen
3