In re Barnett

Full title: In re BOBBY K. BARNETT

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Oxford Division

Date published: Aug 4, 2022

3:22MC9-MPM-DAS (N.D. Miss. Aug. 4, 2022)

Opinion

3:22MC9-MPM-DAS

08-04-2022

In re BOBBY K. BARNETT

MICHAEL P. MILLS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

MICHAEL P. MILLS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

This matter comes before the court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal of this cause. Bobby K. Barnett has submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He was convicted for murder and felon in possession of a firearm in Pike County, Mississippi, on June 14, 1995. He has challenged his murder conviction through a habeas corpus petition under § 2254 many times, as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has noted. See In re: Barnett, No. 13-60842 at 2 (5^th Cir. Feb. 20, 2014). The Fifth Circuit has sanctioned Barnett for repeatedly challenging the same conviction, ordering:

that Barnett pay a sanction in the amount of $100 to the clerk of this court. Barnett is BARRED from filing in this court or any other court subject to this court's jurisdiction any challenge to his [1995] murder conviction and life sentence until the sanction is paid in full, unless he first obtains leave of the court in which he seeks to file such a challenge.

Id. Staff with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals have informed this court that Barnett has accumulated more sanctions for this behavior, which now total $300.

Under the Fifth Circuit's sanctions order, this court will not file Barnett's pleading as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus; instead the court has docketed the pleading as a Miscellaneous Case. However, as the pleading clearly challenges Barnett's convictions for murder and felon in possession of a firearm, it is, substantively, a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and, as discussed below, this court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act requires that before a district court files a second or successive petition, “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). The petitioner has not obtained such an order, and the court will dismiss the petition for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

Therefore, it is ORDERED that the instant petition is DISMISSED under the Fifth Circuit's sanctions order in In re: Barnett, No. 13-60842; the petition is also DISMISSED for want of subject matter jurisdiction, as it is successive. This case is CLOSED.

SO ORDERED.