Taylor v. West Tenn State Prison

Filing 3

ORDER: Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 is granted. The Clerk shall file the petition. The Clerk shall TRANSFER this case to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 9/4/2014. (xc: Pro se party by regular and certified mail.) (xc: 6CCA by email). (ds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

DERRICK S. TAYLOR
Petitioner,

]
]
]
]
]
]
]

v.
JAMES M. HOLLOWAY, Warden1
Respondent.

No. 3:14-1788
Judge Trauger

O R D E R
The Court has before it a pro se prisoner petition (Docket
Entry No.1) under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, for writ of habeas corpus, and
an application (Docket Entry No.2) to proceed in forma pauperis.
It appears from the application that the petitioner lacks
sufficient financial resources from which to pay for the filing of
his petition. Therefore, the Clerk shall file the petition in forma
pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
The petitioner is an inmate at the West Tennessee State
Penitentiary in Henning, Tennessee. Nashville. He brings this
action against James Holloway, Warden of the facility, challenging
his 2009 convictions for attempted especially aggravated robbery

1

The petitioner has not named anyone as respondent to this
action. However, the proper respondent in a § 2254 action is the
state officer having custody of the petitioner. Rule 2(a), Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases. The Court takes judicial notice that
James Holloway is currently the Warden at the West Tennessee
State Penitentiary.

and attempted first degree murder.
The petitioner has already attacked these convictions at least
once before in an earlier § 2254 action. Derrick S. Taylor v. Jerry
Lester,

Warden,

Civil

No.3:13-1275

(M.D.

Tenn.)(dismissed

on

3/12/14 for being untimely and for procedural default). That action
was considered and dismissed on the merits. See In re Cook, 215
F.3d 606,607-608 (6th Cir.2000)(the dismissal of a prior habeas
petition for a procedural default is a dismissal on the merits).
Before a second or successive petition may be adjudicated in
the district court, the petitioner must move in the appropriate
court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to
consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Apparently, the
petitioner has not yet sought and obtained the authorization from
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals needed for this Court to
consider his current petition.
Accordingly, the Clerk shall TRANSFER this case to the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration. 28 U.S.C. §
1631; In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir.1997).
It is so ORDERED.

______________________________
Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge