Strong v. State of Mississippi

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Senior Judge Neal B. Biggers on 9/1/17. (cr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION

RONNIE RAY STRONG
V.

PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17CV157-NBB-DAS

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

RESPONDENT

ORDER DISMISSING CASE
This matter comes before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of the dismissal of this
cause. Ronnie Ray Strong has submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his guilty plea conviction and resulting sentence for strong armed
robbery.
Strong has previously filed at least one other unsuccessful § 2254 petition challenging his
strong armed robbery conviction and sentence. See Strong v. Mississippi, 2:12CV143-MPMJMV. He has filed several subsequent petitions, each of which were transferred to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals for consideration of whether he could file a successive petition in this
Court. The Fifth Circuit has, in each case, denied Strong permission to file a successive § 2254
application. See Strong v. Smith, 3:14CV178-GHD-JMV; Strong v. Hood, 3:15CV66-NBBJMV; Strong v. Mississippi, 3:16CV113-DMB-RP.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act requires that an applicant seeking to
file a second or successive petition first “move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order
authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Strong
has not demonstrated that he has obtained authorization from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
to file this successive petition. In fact, on July 6, 2017, the appellate court denied Strong

permission to file a successive habeas petition, and it issued monetary sanctions against Strong
due to his repetitive filings. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit determined that Strong “is BARRED
from filing in this court or any court. . . any challenge to his strong armed robbery conviction and
sentence until the sanction is paid in full, unless he first obtains leave of the court in which he
seeks to file such challenge.” See, e.g., Strong v. Hood, 3:16CV113-DMB-RP (Doc. #12, Fifth
Circuit Order).
As noted above, this Court cannot consider Strong’s petition absent Fifth Circuit
approval, and he has not obtained such approval. Because Strong has not presented this Court
with any evidence that he has satisfied the sanction imposed by the Fifth Circuit, a transfer of
this matter to the Fifth Circuit for consideration would be futile. Accordingly, the instant
petition must be DISMISSED, and this case CLOSED. Any pending motions are DISMISSED
AS MOOT. Additionally, for the reasons as set forth herein, a certificate of appealability from
this decision is DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)
(“When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the
prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least,
that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the
denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”).
SO ORDERED this 1st day of September, 2017.

/s/ Neal Biggers___________________________
NEAL B. BIGGERS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2