Creek v. Dooley
Filing
10
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (28:2254), denying 2 MOTION Regarding Prison Litigation Reform Act filed by Clayton Sheldon Creek. It is further ORDERED that under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) Creek, unless in "imminent danger of serious physical injury," may not file any new federal civil case absent paying the filing fee in full. Signed by U.S. District Judge Roberto A. Lange on October 16, 2014. (DLC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CLAYTON SHELDON CREEK,
Petitioner,
vs.
ROBERT DOOLEY,
Respondent.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CIV 14-4141-RAL
OPINION AND ORDER
DISMISSING PETITION
FOR HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner Clayton Sheldon Creek filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 on September 9, 2014. Doc. 1. Creek also filed Petitioner's "Motion
Regarding Prison Litigation Reform Act." Doc. 2. Creek is well known to this Court based on
his multiple past filings.
Creek is an inmate at the South Dakota State Penitentiary having pleaded guilty to one
count of second degree rape on November 30, 1999, in the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington
County, South Dakota. Creek v. Weber, No. 08-3009, 2008 WL 2368670, at *1 (D.S.D. June
10, 2008). Creek listed in this § 2254 petition his conviction on one count of forgery and one
count of offering false instrument for recording in the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha
County. In this Petition, Creek's primary challenge is to the validity of the order debarring him
from further court filings. Doc. 1.
Creek has filed twenty-two previous lawsuits in this court prior to commencing this
action. See Creek v. Kaemingk, Civ. 13-5065-RAL, Doc. 9 (November 5, 2013) (citing to
twenty-one previous federal lawsuits filed by Creek); Creek v. Weber, Civ. 12-4188-RAL, Doc.
3 (December 28, 2012); see also Creek v. United States, CIV 11-3005-RAL, Doc. 7 (February
9, 2011) (outlining Creek's nineteen previous suits and their outcomes, and then dismissing the
case that was in front of this Court at the time). He has "filed a multitude of prior actions under
28 U.S.C. § 2254." Creek, 2008 WL 2368670, at *1. Three of Creek's previous actions were
dismissed for failure to exhaust state habeas remedies, while five others were dismissed as
improper successive petitions filed without obtaining an order from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Id. (outlining previous dispositions and dismissing case as
improper successive habeas petition); Creek v. Kaemingk, Civ. 13-5065-RAL, Doc. 9
(November 5, 2013); Creek v. Weber, CIV 12-4188-RAL, Doc. 3 (December 28, 2012). Creek
has been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of South Dakota for repeated frivolous filings, and
state courts in South Dakota are not required to accept his filings without prior court approval.
Creek, 2008 WL 2368670, at *1 n.1.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act provides in relevant part that
"[b]efore 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." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Similarly, Rule 9 of the Rules
Governing § 2254 in United States District Courts states that "[b]efore presenting a second or
successive petition, the petitioner must obtain an order from the appropriate court of appeals
authorizing the district court to consider the petition as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) and
(4)." See Creek, 2008 WL 2368670, at *1 (internal quotation marks omitted). Creek has not
received an appropriate order from the Eighth Circuit to again present another claim under §
2254. Therefore, his petition must be dismissed as an improper successive appeal.
Indeed, Creek's current case did not have to be accepted for filing at all. In Creek v.
Weber, CIV 04-4021-LLP, the Honorable Lawrence Piersol reviewed the denial of Creek's state
2
court habeas petition, dismissed the federal habeas petition on the merits, and denied a certificate
of appealability. CIV 04-4021-LLP, Doc. 24 (September 16, 2004). Creek appealed and the
Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of the certificate. Judge Piersol then ordered that the Clerk
of Court not accept further motions from Creek. CIV 04-4021-LLP, Doc. 34 (June 28, 2005).
Part of a later order entered by the Honorable Charles B. Kornmann in Creek v. Trimble, CIV
05-3028-CBK (October 5, 2005), directed the Clerk of this Court "not to accept any further
filings by Clayton S. Creek without previous written authorization from this Court." Creek, CIV
11-3005-CBK (February 9, 2011).
Part of Creek's current Petition seeks to challenge these orders. Again, the Petition is
successive and its merits need not be addressed anyway. Even so, the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) states:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the
prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or
detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of
the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claims upon which relief
may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.
A court order enforcing § 1915(g) with respect to Creek is appropriate, where the Court leaves
a mechanism to consider a petition so as to ensure that a prisoner is not "under imminent danger
of physical injury." Thus, Creek's § 2254 challenge to being debarred from further civil case
filings is mistaken. Creek did not receive this Court's previous written authorization to file this
new action, there is no indication that Creek is "under imminent danger of serious physical
injury," and his Petition nevertheless has been filed. For the reasons explained, Creek's Petition
must now be dismissed.
3
Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that Creek's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, is denied and no
certificate of appealability will issue. It is further
ORDERED that Creek's "Motion Regarding Prison Litigation Reform Act," Doc. 2, is
denied. It is further
ORDERED that under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Creek, unless in "imminent danger of serious
physical injury," may not file any new federal civil case absent paying the filing fee in full.
Dated October 16, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Roberto A. Lange
ROBERTO A. LANGE
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?