Thorne v. Steele

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED AS SUCCESSIVE.. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 6/13/17. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY THORNE, SR.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
TROY STEELE,
Respondent.

No. 4:17-CV-1651 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner=s application for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and his motion for leave to commence this action without payment of
the required filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a).
Upon consideration of the financial information provided with the application, the Court
finds that petitioner is financially unable to pay any portion of the filing fee. Therefore, the Court
grants petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, petitioner=s application for writ of
habeas corpus is successive and shall be summarily dismissed. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
§ 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He was convicted
and sentenced in the Circuit Court of St. Francois County on November 19, 2003, on charges of
statutory sodomy.
The Court=s records show that petitioner previously brought a § 2254 petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, and that the action was denied on the merits.

See Thorne v. Purkett, No.

4:05CV1172 DDN (E.D. Mo.). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitioner a certificate
of appealability and dismissed the appeal. Thorne v. Purkett, No. 08-3139 (8th Cir. 2009).

To the extent that petitioner seeks to relitigate claims that he brought in his original
petition, those claims must be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). To the extent that
petitioner seeks to bring new claims for habeas relief, petitioner must obtain leave from the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit before he can bring those claims in
this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). (emphasis added) Petitioner has not been granted leave
to file a successive habeas petition in this Court. As a result, the petition shall be dismissed.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner=s application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner=s application for writ of habeas corpus is
DISMISSED AS SUCCESSIVE.
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 13th

day of June, 2017.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2