White v. Trammel

Filing 11

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White : Petitioner's sucessive challenge to his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2254 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.(acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORIIEHEJ
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ,r ~ Jt ... -c4

ED

MAY 16 2013
RICKEY WHITE,
Petitioner,

v.
ANITA TRAMMELL, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

PA.;'Hi.CF: :t{EANEY

Cieri\

:.1

8 Oistrici Court

Deputy clerk
~·----~~~~------

Case No. CIV 13-185-RAW-KEW

OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Rickey White, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which
transferred the action to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

Petitioner again is

challenging his conviction for First Degree Murder in Choctaw County District Court Case
No. CRF-81-83, based on an allegedly invalid warrant. He apparently also is claiming the
petition was properly before the Missouri District Court.
The record shows that petitioner previously has challenged this conviction and
sentence, and his earlier habeas corpus action was dismissed as barred by the statute of
limitations. White v. Gibson, No. CIV 00-075-FHS (E.D. Okla. Mar. 31, 2003), aff'd, No.
03-7054 (lOth Cir. Oct. 22, 2003). He has continued to file post-conviction applications in
state court, but in 2008 the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals barred him from seeking
further relief from his Judgment and Sentence in CRF -81-83. White v. State, No. PC-2008731 (Okla. Crim. App. Oct. 24, 2008). On April 30, 2009, the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals denied petitioner's second motion for authorization to file a second or successive
petition, finding he had "failed to make a prima facie showing of new facts." In re White,
No. 09-7045, slip op. at 2 (lOth Cir. Apr. 30, 2009). Therefore, to the extent he again is
challenging his sentence, the court construes this petition as yet another successive petition
arising under § 2254.
When a second or successive § 2254 . . . claim is filed in the district court

without the required authorization from [the circuit court of appeals], the
district court may transfer the matter to [the circuit] court if it determines it is
in the interest of justice to do so under § 1631, or it may dismiss the motion or
petition for lack of jurisdiction.

In reCline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1252 (lOth Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). See also Phillips v.
Seiter, 173 F.3d 609,610 (7th Cir. 1999) (noting that it is a waste of judicial resources to
require the transfer of frivolous, time-barred cases). Because petitioner has failed to obtain
authorization from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive § 2254
petition, this challenge to petitioner's sentence is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

ACCORDINGLY, petitioner's successive challenge to his sentence under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED this

/t tr day ofMay 2013.
7

~/;:(_

?v{{{p

RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2