Stewart v. People of the State of Michigan

Filing 2

ORDER transferring successive habeas petition to USCA for the Sixth Circuit. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (DPer)

Case 3:20-cv-11741-RHC-DRG ECF No. 2 filed 07/20/20

PageID.18

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

NAYMON DARNELL STEWART,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 20-11741

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Respondent.
/
ORDER TRANSFERRING SUCCESSIVE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
On April 14, 2020, Naymon Darnell Steward filed a habeas corpus petition under
28 U.S.C. § 2254. 1 (ECF No. 1.) In that petition, he challenges his state court
convictions for second-degree murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.317, and felony
firearm, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b. Because this petition is an unauthorized
successive petition, the court will transfer the petition to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Petitioner previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with this court in
2017. See Stewart v. Harry, No. 17-10889 (E.D. Mich.) (Cohn, J.). The court dismissed
the petition because it was filed after expiration of the one-year limitations period
applicable to habeas actions and denied a certificate of appealability. See Stewart, No.
17-10889 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2017). The Court of Appeals also denied a certificate of
appealability. Stewart v. Harry, No. 17-1494 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2017).

1

The petition was docketed on July 8, 2020. The docketing delay was caused
by mailing issues associated with the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.

Case 3:20-cv-11741-RHC-DRG ECF No. 2 filed 07/20/20

PageID.19

Page 2 of 3

A petitioner challenging a state court judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must
“seek authorization in a federal appeals court before filing a ‘second or successive
application’ in district court.” In re Stansell, 828 F.3d 412, 414 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)). A habeas petition is “second or successive” for purposes of
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) if the petition challenges the same conviction(s) challenged in a
prior petition and the prior petition was decided on the merits. In re William Garner, 612
F.3d 533, 535 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing In re Cook, 215 F.3d 606, 607-08 (6th Cir. 2000)).
Federal “district courts lack jurisdiction to consider ‘second or successive’ habeas
applications without prior authorization from the appropriate Court of Appeals.” Franklin
v. Jenkins, 839 F.3d 465, 475 (6th Cir. 2016).
Petitioner challenges the same convictions challenged in his earlier petition,
which the court denied on the merits. See In re Cook, 215 F.3d at 608 (explaining that
dismissal with prejudice based on a procedural default is a decision “on the merits” for
purposes of § 2244(b)(3)); McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009)
(explaining that dismissal of a habeas petition for failure to comply with the statute of
limitations is a decision “on the merits”). Therefore, the current petition is “second or
successive” to the 2017 petition. Petitioner failed to seek preauthorization from the
Court of Appeals before filing the instant petition. When a successive petition for habeas
corpus relief is filed in the district court without prior authorization, the district court must
transfer the petition to the Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. In re Sims,
111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997). Accordingly,

2

Case 3:20-cv-11741-RHC-DRG ECF No. 2 filed 07/20/20

PageID.20

Page 3 of 3

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court TRANSFER this case to the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals for authorization.
s/Robert H. Cleland
/
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 20, 2020
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, July 20, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
/
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]
S:\Cleland\Cleland\HEK\Staff Attorney\20-11741.STEWART.successive.petition.MBC.HEK.docx

3