Flaharty et al v. United States of America
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE AS SUCCESSIVE PETITION. For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, the Court transfers this case to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Ordered by Judge John Gleeson on 6/22/2012. (Sheketoff, Julia)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CARF FLAHARTY and GARTH BRUCE,
- versus -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JOHN GLEESON, United States District Judge:
Carf Flaharty, proceeding on his own behalf and on behalf of Garth Bruce, brings
this pro se habeas petition to vacate his and Bruce’s judgments of conviction for federal crimes
related to their participation in a drug conspiracy.
As an initial matter, although Flaharty purports to bring this action on behalf of
Bruce, a layperson “may not appear on another person’s behalf in the other’s cause.”
Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir. 1997). I thus dismiss the petition as to Bruce
without prejudice to refiling by Bruce, either pro se or with proper representation.
Considering the petition as to Flaharty, Flaharty has already collaterally attacked
his convictions, see Flaharty v. United States, No. 03 Civ. 3756 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2004), and
the instant petition is thus a “successive” petition governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 2244.
Because Flaharty lacks the requisite authorization to file a successive petition under these
provisions, his petition in transferred to the court of appeals in the interest of justice. See 28
U.S.C. § 1631; Liriano v. United States, 95 F.3d 119, 123 (2d Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to transfer the instant
application to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and then close the case.
If the Second Circuit authorizes him to proceed with his successive petition, Flaharty shall move
to reopen the case under this docket number.
John Gleeson, U.S.D.J.
Dated: June 22, 2012
Brooklyn, New York
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?