Moorer v. Woods
ORDER denying 4 Application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs and transferring 1 Petition for writ of habeas corpus to the USCA for the Sixth Circuit as a second or successive habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2444(b)(3)(A). Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (DPer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
LARRY ALFONSO MOORER,
Case No. 16-13994
Hon. Terrence G. Berg
Hon. Stephanie Dawkins Davis
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYMENT OF FEES AND COSTS (DKT. 4) AND TRANSFERRING
HABEAS PETITION (DKT. 1) TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT AS A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)
Petitioner Larry Alfonso Moorer recently filed a pro se habeas corpus petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 1. The habeas petition challenges Petitioner’s 2002
convictions in Wayne County Circuit Court for first-degree murder and possession of
a firearm during the commission of a felony. Because Petitioner challenged the same
convictions in a previous habeas petition that was denied on the merits, the Court
must transfer the petition to the Court of Appeals for a determination of whether this
Court may adjudicate Petitioner’s claims.
Petitioner filed his first habeas corpus petition in December of 2005. See Moorer
v. Jackson, No. 05-74924, Dkt. 1. That petition was denied on the merits in March of
2008. See Moorer v. Jackson, No. 05-74924 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 17, 2008) (Cleland, J.)
(Dkt. 28). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit then denied
Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability. See Moorer v. Jackson, No.
08-1520 (6th Cir. Oct. 23, 2008).
Several years later, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment, which the
state trial court denied. See People v. Moorer, Op. and Order Denying Relief from J.,
No. 01-013494-01-FC (Wayne Cty. Cir. Ct. Aug. 6, 2015). Both of Michigan’s appellate
courts denied leave to appeal, citing Michigan Court Rule 6.508(D). See People v.
Moorer, No. 329172 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2015); People v. Moorer, 884 N.W.2d 792
(2016). Finally, on November 10, 2016, Petitioner filed the habeas corpus petition
that is currently before the Court. Dkt. 1.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) “requires
petitioners challenging state court judgments to seek authorization in a federal
appeals court before filing a ‘second or successive application’ in district court.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).” In re Stansell, 828 F.3d 412, 414 (6th Cir. 2016). A habeas
petition is considered “second or successive” if the prior petition was decided on the
merits. In re William Garner, 612 F.3d 533, 535 (6th Cir. 2010).
Petitioner’s first habeas petition was denied on the merits, and Petitioner has not
acquired permission from the Court of Appeals to file a second or successive habeas
petition. This Court therefore must transfer the petition filed in this case to the Court
of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. See In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court transfer Petitioner’s
habeas petition (Dkt. 1) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
for a determination of whether this Court may adjudicate Petitioner’s claims.
It is further ORDERED that Petitioner’s application to proceed without
prepayment of fees and costs (Dkt. 4) is denied as moot because Petitioner paid the
filing fee for this action.
Dated: January 23, 2017
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on January 23,
2017, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to all parties.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?