Washam v. Walsh et al
ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R is ADOPTED, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is GRANTED, and the petn for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. 4 2 Signed by Chief Judge Yvette Kane on June 6, 2011. (sc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES L. WALSH, et al.,
Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-540
(Chief Judge Kane)
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Petitioner Thomas Washam filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 on March 22, 2011. (Doc. No. 1.) On May 18, 2011, Magistrate Judge Malachy
E. Mannion filed a report and recommendation in which he recommended that the petition be
dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. No. 4.) As noted in the report and recommendation, the
Court may not consider the instant petition for habeas relief because it is a second or successive
petition and petitioner has failed to obtain authorization to file the petition from a three-judge
panel of the court of appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S.
147, 152-53 (2007) (concluding a district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive habeas
petition where Petitioner did not seek or obtain authorization to file the petition). On June 3,
2011, Petitioner filed objections to the report and recommendation. (Doc. No. 6.) Those
objections, however, fail to address in any way the jurisdictional bar to proceeding in this Court
raised by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
ACCORDINGLY, on this 6th day of June 2011, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 4) is ADOPTED, the motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis is GRANTED (Doc. No. 2), and the petition for writ of habeas corpus is
DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
S/ Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
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?