Jackson v. Sloan

Filing 7

Memorandum Opinion: The Court concludes that the instant petition is successive, and this action shall be transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1631. (Related Doc # 1 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 6/23/2015. (P,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

THEODORE JACKSON,

PETITIONER,
vs.
BRIGHAM SLOAN,

RESPONDENT.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-782

JUDGE SARA LIOI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 22, 2015, petitioner Theodore Jackson filed this action for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. ' 2254. (Doc. No. 1 [Petition].) The petition alleges that
Jackson is incarcerated despite the fact that his sentence has expired. For the reasons stated
below, this action must be transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.
A second or successive motion under § 2254 may not be filed without leave
from the appropriate court of appeals. See 28 U.S.C. ' 2244(b)(3). This is at least the
second petition filed by Jackson in this court challenging the calculation of his sentence. In
a petition filed in another case, that claim was denied with prejudice as non-cognizable on
habeas review. See Jackson v. Sloane, N.D. Ohio Case No. 1:13-cv-1326 (Doc. No. 39

[Report and Recommendation] at 8531 and Doc. No. 60 [Memorandum Opinion and Order]
at 1124). There are no grounds set forth in the instant petition which are newly ripened, or
that were unripe when the previous petition was filed, or that support any exception to the
filing of a second successive petition under 18 U.S.C. § 2244(b). See Stewart v. MartinezVillareal, 523 U.S. 637, 643, 118 S. Ct. 1618, 140 L. Ed. 2d 849 (1998); Panetti v.
Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 946, 127 S. Ct. 2842, 168 L. Ed. 2d 662 (2007).
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the instant petition is successive, and
this action shall be transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. In re Smith, 690 F.3d 809, 810 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing In re
Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997)); Keith v LaRose, No. 1:13CV1718, 2014 WL
1369655, at *4 (Mar. 28, 2014) (successive petition transferred to the Sixth Circuit
pursuant to Sims).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2015
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

All references to page numbers are to the page identification numbers generated by the Court’s electronic
filing system.
2