Vaughn v. Klingler et al
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White : Denying 15 petitioner's Motion for and evidentiary Hearing. Striking petitioner's petition for authorization order for second or successive habeas corpus 16 and the Minute Order denying the petition 17 . Petitioner is granted 30 days to file a response to Respondent's answer which is due 3/1/2017. (Re: 17 Ruling on Motion to Amend,, 16 MOTION to Amend ) (acg, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GREGORY DAVID VAUGHN,
KEN KLINGER, Warden,
No. CIV 16-425-RAW-KEW
OPINION AND ORDER
This habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 was commenced in the
Western District of Oklahoma on September 20, 2016 (Dkt. 1). The case was transferred to
this Court on October 10, 2016, because Petitioner is incarcerated in this district (Doc. 9).
On December 13, 2016, Petitioner filed a “petition for authorization order for second
or successive habeas corpus” (Dkt. 16), which was construed as a motion to amend this §
2241 petition (Dkt. 1). On December 21, 2016, the Court denied the motion as improperly
filed in this Court (Dkt. 17). On January 18, 2017, Petitioner submitted a letter stating the
petition for authorization to file a second or successive petition was intended to initiate a new
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and to challenge the validity of the sentences imposed
in his conviction in Stephens County, Oklahoma (Dkt. 18).
Because Petitioner’s petition for authorization order for second or successive habeas
corpus was improperly filed, the Clerk of Court is directed to STRIKE the improper petition
(Dkt. 16) and the minute order denying it (Dkt. 17). The Court Clerk is further directed to
send Petitioner a copy of the docket sheet in this case. Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days
from the entry of this Order to file a response to Respondent’s answer to this § 2241 petition
Regarding Petitioner’s attempt to initiate a separate habeas corpus petition with his
petition for authorization order for second or successive habeas corpus (Dkt. 16), he asserts
in a letter dated January 20, 2017 (Dkt. 19), that he may not have needed authorization to file
a § 2254 petition, because he has not filed a previous § 2254 action. If Petitioner wants to
pursue a separate § 2254 action challenging the Stephens County conviction and sentence,
he must submit a proper petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2254, along with
either the $5.00 filing fee or a proper motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Furthermore, because Stephens County is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Western
District of Oklahoma, any § 2254 petition must be filed in that court.
Petitioner also has filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing “because of unfactual and
false statements, as well as the deception and omission of evidence from DOC records” (Dkt.
15 at 1). The motion concerns Petitioner’s disagreements with Respondent’s answer (Dkt.
14). He asks to be allowed to present evidence through DOC records, because Respondent
allegedly has tried to conceal this evidence (Dkt. 15 at 4). The Court finds an evidentiary
hearing is not warranted, because the documents filed in this case are sufficient to resolve
Petitioner’s habeas claims. See Anderson v. Attorney Gen. of Kan., 425 F.3d 853, 858-59
(10th Cir. 2005) (citing Torres v. Mullin, 317 F.3d 1145, 1161 (10th Cir. 2003)). Petitioner’s
motion for an evidentiary hearing (Dkt. 15) is DENIED.
ACCORDINGLY, the Clerk of Court is directed to STRIKE Petitioner’s petition for
authorization order for second or successive habeas corpus (Dkt. 16) and the minute order
denying the petition (Dkt. 17). The Clerk of Court is further directed to send Petitioner a
copy of the docket sheet for this case. Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (Dkt.
15) is DENIED, and Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days to file a response to Respondent’s
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of January 2017.
RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?