Opinion
CASE NO. 05-73763
12-19-2014
TRENT CARR, JR., Petitioner, v. KENNETH ROMANOWSKI, Respondent
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's "Rule 60(b)(6) Motion for Relief from Judgment" (hereinafter, "Motion for Relief") (Docket #54). Therein, Petitioner asks the Court to grant him relief from the Sixth Circuit's May 27, 2014, denial of his successive petition for habeas corpus.
As Petitioner clearly recognized when he filed his successive petition directly with the Sixth Circuit, this Court lacks jurisdiction over any successive petition because he previously filed a federal habeas petition in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 641 (1998) (An individual seeking to file a second or successive habeas petition must first ask the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the petition). This is clear under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which provides a federal district court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a successive post-conviction motion or petition for writ of habeas corpus in the absence of an order from the court of appeals authorizing the filing of such a successive motion or petition. See Ferrazza v. Tessmer, 36 F. Supp. 2d 965, 971 (E.D. Mich. 1999). Thus, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear Petitioner's Motion for Relief regarding his successive habeas petition. In addition, this Court has no authority to review or grant relief from a judgment rendered by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Accordingly, this Court shall not analyze or consider Defendant's Motion for Relief.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Petitioner's "Rule 60(b)(6) Motion for Relief from Judgment" (Docket #54).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: December 19, 2014