Opinion
Civil No. 00-CV-71853-DT.
October 24, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
On February 28, 2002, this Court denied petitioner's application for habeas relief brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he challenged his conviction for one count of attempted murder and one count of placing explosives with intent to destroy causing injury to a person. See Dell v. Straub, 194 F. Supp. 2d 629 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
On July 21, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied petitioner permission to file a second or successive petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding that petitioner's request failed to satisfy the requirements for filling a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). In Re Dell, U.S.C.A. No. 06-1009 (6th Cir. July 21, 2006).
Petitioner has now filed two motions for relief from judgment, in which he asks this Court to re-open the habeas petition on the same basis that he asked the Sixth Circuit to grant him permission to file a second or successive habeas petition.
A district court lacks the authority to reinstate a habeas petitioner's second or successive petition for writ of habeas corpus after the Court of Appeals declines to grant petitioner leave to file such a petition. See White v. Carter, 27 Fed. Appx. 312, 313-14 (6th Cir. 2001). Therefore, this Court is without authority to grant petitioner relief from the Sixth Circuit's refusal to grant petitioner permission to file a successive habeas petition or to allow him to re-open his original habeas petition.
Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear petitioner's second or successive habeas petition in the absence of a certificate of authorization from the Sixth Circuit, a certificate of appealability will be denied. See Vargas v. Sikes, 42 F. Supp. 2d 1380, 1381-1382 (N.D. Ga. 1999).
Based upon the foregoing, the motions for relief from judgment are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability will also be DENIED.