Loyd v. Mackie

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER transferring case to USCA for the Sixth Circuit. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (DPer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMAAR LOYD, No. 234363,
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:17-12577
Hon. George Caram Steeh

v.
THOMAS MACKIE,
Respondent.
___________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE COURT
OF APPEALS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)
Jamaar Loyd, (“Petitioner”), incarcerated at the Oaks Correctional
Facility in Manistee, Michigan, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is incarcerated as the result of his
1993 Saginaw Circuit Court jury trial convictions of first-degree murder, armed
robbery, and felony-firearm. The petition asserts three grounds for relief: (1)
the trial court erroneously re-characterized Petitioner’s post-conviction claims,
(2) the trial court did not acquire personal jurisdiction to try Petitioner, and (3)
Petitioner did not waive his jurisdictional claim.
Petitioner has filed at least one prior petition for a writ of habeas corpus
challenging the convictions at issue in the present case that was denied on

-1-

the merits. See Loyd v. Withrow, No. 1:98-cv-10248 (E.D. Mich. January 21,
2000). The Sixth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion, finding that the
petition was properly denied for lack of merit. Loyd v. Withrow, 238 F.3d 422;
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 29292 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 2000).
Before a second or successive habeas petition is filed in a federal
district court, a habeas petitioner must move in the appropriate court of
appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 641
(1998). A federal district court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a
successive petition for writ of habeas corpus in the absence of an order of
authorization from the court of appeals. Ferrazza v. Tessmer, 36 F. Supp. 2d
965, 971 (E.D. Mich. 1999). Unless the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has
given its approval for the filing of a second or successive petition, a district
court in the Sixth Circuit must transfer the petition or motion to the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Id. at 971; See also In Re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th
Cir. 1997).
The current habeas petition is a successive petition within the meaning
of § 2244(b)(3)(A). This Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to entertain the
petition in the absence of authorization from the Sixth Circuit. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

-2-

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court transfer this
case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1631 and In Re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997).
Dated: August 16, 2017
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
August 16, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also
on Jamaar Demond Loyd #234363, Oaks Correctional Facility,
1500 Caberfae Highway, Manistee, MI 49660.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-3-