Johnson v. Pitcher
Filing
69
ORDER denying 68 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOSEPH JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
v.
TERRY PITCHER,
CASE NO. 95-CV-76196
HONORABLE JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Respondent,
_____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
Petitioner filed a motion to amend the petition for writ of habeas corpus, seeking to
add a claim to his 1995 habeas petition, which challenged his 1985 conviction for seconddegree murder. On May 18, 2016, the Court ordered that the motion be transferred to the
Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), because the motion was a
successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus that required a certificate of authorization
from the Court of Appeals before petitioner could proceed.
Petitioner has filed a motion to alter or amend judgment of the Court’s order
transferring the case to the Sixth Circuit pursuant to § 2244(b)(3)(A). For the reasons that
follow, the motion is DENIED.
A district court loses jurisdiction over a state prisoner’s habeas petition 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
1
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1631 and 2244(b)(3)(A) to consider petitioner’s motion to
alter or amend the transfer order. Id., at 261-62.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that motion to alter or amend judgment (Dkt. # 68) is
DENIED.
s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: June 9, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
of record on this date, June 9, 2016, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.
s/William Barkholz
Case Manager
2
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?