Whitt v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution
Filing
6
OPINION AND ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 4 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 3/30/2018. (ds)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
STEPHEN H. WHITT,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00183
Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, LEBANON
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
On March 12, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant
to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases recommending that this action be
transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as successive. (ECF No.
4.) Petitioner has filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
(ECF No. 5.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court has conducted a de novo review. For
the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s Objection (ECF No. 5) is OVERRULED. The Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 4) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.
This action is
TRANSFERRED to the Sixth Circuit as a successive petition.
The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.
Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that this action be
transferred to the Sixth Circuit for authorization for filing as a successive petition. Petitioner
again argues that the charges against him were constitutionally invalid, and that he has been
denied due process and equal protection. Petitioner asserts that he was convicted pursuant to a
fatal variance, and that the judgment against him is illegal and void. He contends that this action
does not constitute a successive petition under Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010),
because he challenges the trial court’s January 30, 2012, re-sentencing entry, and because he
raises a claim based on a new rule of constitutional law that is retroactively applicable on
collateral review. Petitioner requests that the Court take judicial notice of the documents he has
attached to his Objection, and to portions of the state record.
In certain “limited circumstances, a § 2254 petition is not considered ‘second or
successive’ within the meaning of § 2244(b) even though the petitioner filed a previous habeas
application.” Storey v. Vasbinder, 657 F.3d 372, 376 (6th Cir. 2011).
For example, a habeas petition is not considered “second or
successive” under § 2244(b) when the claim has been raised in a
prior petition, but dismissed as unripe, although other claims in the
initial petition were decided on the merits. Stewart v. MartinezVillareal, 523 U.S. 637, 643–46, 118 S.Ct. 1618, 140 L.Ed.2d 849
(1998). Even if the claim was not presented in an earlier petition, a
subsequent petition raising the claim does not constitute a
“successive” petition for purposes of § 2244(b) if the claim would
have been dismissed as unripe in the initial petition. Panetti, 551
U.S. at 945, 127 S.Ct. 2842. Nor do the successive petition
restrictions apply if the first petition was dismissed for lack of
exhaustion. Slack, 529 U.S. at 478, 487, 120 S.Ct. 1595. The
restrictions also do not apply if an intervening state court judgment
(such as a resentencing) occurred after the first habeas petition was
decided. Magwood, 561 U.S. at 335, 339, 130 S.Ct. 2788; King v.
Morgan, 807 F.3d 154, 157 (6th Cir. 2015).
In re Campbell, 874 F.3d 454, 459 (6th Cir. 2017). In Magwood, 561 U.S. at 331-39, referred to
by the Petitioner, the Supreme Court held that a habeas corpus petition is not successive where it
is filed after the trial court conducts a re-sentencing hearing that results in the issuance of a new
judgment against the Petitioner. Id. However, the re-sentencing entry Petitioner refers to
occurred in January 2012, and prior to the filing of his first federal habeas corpus petition. See
Whitt v. Warden, Case No. 2:12-cv-731. Moreover, as discussed by the Magistrate Judge,
Petitioner thereafter filed two subsequent habeas corpus petitions challenging these same
convictions, and has twice been denied authorization for the filing of a successive petition.
2
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4, PageID# 311.) Under these circumstances, this action
plainly constitutes a successive petition. Moreover, as discussed, this Court therefore lacks
jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claims absent authorization from the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152-53 (2007).
Therefore, Petitioner’s Objection (ECF No. 5) is OVERRULED. His request for judicial notice
is DENIED. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.
This action is TRANSFERRED to the Sixth Circuit as a successive petition.
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts, the Court now considers whether to issue a certificate of appealability. “In
contrast to an ordinary civil litigant, a state prisoner who seeks a writ of habeas corpus in federal
court holds no automatic right to appeal from an adverse decision by a district court,” Jordan v.
Fisher, –––U.S. ––––. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2647, 2650 (2015); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (requiring a
habeas petitioner to obtain a certificate of appealability in order to appeal.)
When a claim has been denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue only
if the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a
petitioner must show “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that)
the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were
‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’ ” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893, n. 4 (1983)). When a claim has been
denied on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability may issue if the petitioner establishes
that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the
3
denial of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Id.
This Court is not persuaded that reasonable jurists would debate this Court's decision
transferring the case to the Court of Appeals as a successive petition. Therefore, the Court
DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that the appeal would not be in
good faith, and that an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal should be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 30, 2018
______s/James L. Graham _____
JAMES L. GRAHAM
United States District Judge
4
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?