Winding v. King et al

Filing 175

ORDER denying 173 Motion for New Evidence; denying 174 Motion for Newly Discovered Evidence. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 9/26/2012 (PL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
JAMES C. WINDING, NO. K8115
versus

PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:05-cv-178-DCB-MTP

RONALD KING, Superintendent, and
JIM HOOD, Attorney General RESPONDENTS
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for New
Evidence and Supplement to His Lack of Evidence Claim/Motion to
Submit Pending Lawsuit [docket entry no. 173] and Motion for Newly
Discovery [sic] of Evidence [docket entry no. 174]. It is difficult
to discern the Petitioner’s request in his initial motion, but in
his second, related motion he argues that he possesses newly
discovered evidence of his actual innocence of his sexual battery
conviction “due to the fact that he was denied fundamental due
process of law.” The Petitioner has already filed a habeas petition
related to his conviction for sexual battery, and that petition was
dismissed with prejudice on July 3, 2007. If the Petitioner has new
evidence to present to this Court in a second or successive habeas
petition, he must obtain an order from the Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit authorizing this Court to consider the petition. See
Rule 9 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. Until such
time, this Court has no authorization to reconsider his request.
For the forgoing reasons,

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions [docket entry
nos. 173, 174] are DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 26th day of September, 2012.
/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2