THOMAS v. GAVIN
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER transferring petition to the Court of Appeals for consideration as a successive petition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 12/26/2013. (Mitchell, Robert)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROGER LEE THOMAS, EL 8342,
Petitioner,
)
)
)
) 2:13-CV-1815
)
)
)
v.
WAYBE GAVIN, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Mitchell, M.J.:
Roger Lee Thomas has presented a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Clearly, Thomas is once again seeking to challenge his state court convictions.. He
previously filed a challenge in this Court which was docketed at 2: 11-cv-933. That petition was
dismissed as untimely on August 17, 2011 and on November 10, 2011 a certificate of
appealability was denied by the Court of Appeals. Once again Thomas has returned to this Court
seeking to challenge the same state court convictions.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, signed into law on April 24, 1996,
included several major reforms to the federal habeas corpus laws. As part of this habeas corpus
reform, Congress amended 28 U.S.C.' 2244 to prohibit district courts from entertaining claims
presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application unless the appropriate federal
court of appeals authorizes such filing. The relevant amended language provides as follows:
(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in
the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for
an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.
(B) A motion in the court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to
consider a second or successive application shall be determined by a three-judge
panel of the court of appeals.
(C) The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive
application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing
that the application satisfies the requirements of this subsection.
1
(D) The court of appeals shall grant or deny the authorization to file a second or
successive application not later than 30 days after the filing of the motion.
(E) The grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or
successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a
petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.
28 U.S.C. ' 2244(b)(3).
Because the instant petition was improperly submitted to this court as opposed to the
Court of Appeals as required by 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A), this Court lacks jurisdiction over it
without the authorization of the Court of Appeals, and it will be transferred to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1631 for consideration as a
successive petition.
An appropriate Order shall be entered.
2
ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of December, 2013, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing
Memorandum, the instant petition is transferred forthwith to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1631 for consideration as a successive petition.
s/ Robert C. Mitchell,
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?