Goodie v. Thaler
Filing
8
OPINION ON DISMISSAL denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. This habeas petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. All other pending motions are DENIED. A certificate of Appealability will not issue in this case. (Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(htippen, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CURTIS RAY GOODIE,
TDCJ-CID NO.424312,
Petitioner,
v.
RICK THALER,
Respondent
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-12-2105
OPINION ON DISMISSAL
Petitioner Curtis Ray Goodie, a state inmate proceeding pro se, seeks federal
habeas relief from a conviction in cause number 427023-F from the 184th Criminal District
Court of Harris County, Texas on June 6, 1986. (Docket Entry No.1). Petitioner has sought
federal habeas relief from this conviction in other habeas actions in this Court and others. See
Goodie v. Thaler, Civil Action No.4:01-4029 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2001) (enumerating other cases
in which petitioner sought federal habeas relief from this conviction). In this case, as in Civil
Action No.4:01-4029, petitioner has not alleged that he obtained permission from the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive petition. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) provides
that before a second or successive application permitted by section 2244(b)(2) 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.” Section 2244(b)(3)(A), which became
effective April 24, 1996, creates a “gatekeeping” mechanism at the appellate court for the
consideration of second or successive applications in the district courts. Felker v. Turpin, 518
U.S. 651, 654 (1996). Specifically, it “transfers from the district court to the court of appeals a
screening function which would previously have been performed by the district court.” Id. at
664. Permission may be obtained only by filing, with the appropriate appellate court, a motion
for authorization to file a successive habeas petition with the district court. In re Epps, 127 F.3d
1
364, 365 (5th Cir. 1997) (detailing the procedure for obtaining authorization from the appellate
court). The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive application for
habeas relief only if it determines the application makes a prima facie showing that the
application satisfies the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).
Because petitioner has not shown that he obtained the appropriate appellate court
permission to file a successive federal habeas petition as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A),
this Court has no authority to consider his request for relief. Consequently, this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus.
Accordingly, the pending habeas petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to
petitioner seeking authorization from the court of appeals to proceed in this Court on any new
claims. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No.2) is DENIED.
All other pending motions are DENIED.
Moreover, petitioner has not made a substantial showing that “jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right,” and that such jurists “would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
procedural ruling.” Beazley v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 248, 263 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). For this reason, this Court finds that a certificate of
appealability should not issue in this case.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 9th day of October, 2012.
___________________________________
MELINDA HARMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?