Graves v. United States of America
Order: Habeas corpus petition is successive, and the clerk is directed to transfer the matter to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Fifth Circuit notified via copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing.) Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations re: 3 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 1 Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255, filed by Kim Joe Graves. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 12/27/2016) (mem)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
KIM JOE GRAVES,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-3288-L
This habeas case was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney, who entered Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on November
29, 2016, recommending that Petitioner’s habeas petition be construed as successive and
transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. ' 2244(b)(3).
Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report.
When a petition is deemed successive, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
unless a panel of the Fifth Circuit allows the successive petition to proceed. After reviewing the
pleading, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and
conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court.
Accordingly, the court directs the clerk of the court to transfer the habeas petition in this case to
the Fifth Circuit for determination, as it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. *
It is so ordered this 27th day of December, 2016.
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
An order transferring a successive application to the court of appeals is not a final order requiring a certificate of
appealability. See United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir. 2015).
Order – Solo Page
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?