Opinion
CASE NO. 03-CV-70765-DT
November 6, 2003
OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(bK3KA)
I. Introduction
Before the Court is petitioner's pro se habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has previously filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 1986 conviction out of the Saginaw County Circuit Court for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MICH.COMP.LAWS § 750.520B(1)(b)(iii). The first petition was denied on the merits by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Goodman v. Bock, U.S.D.C. 99-CV-10217-BC (E.D. Mich. April 11, 2000)(Roberts, J.); aff'd 238 F.3d 421 (6th Cir. 2000) (Table). Respondent has now filed a motion to transfer the petition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1631 for the Sixth Circuit to determine whether to grant petitioner permission to file a second or successive habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). For the following reasons, the Court has concluded that it must transfer this case to the Court of Appeals.
II. Discussion
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (" AEDP A") was enacted on April 24, 1996. Among other things, the AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244, 2253, and 2254, which govern habeas corpus proceedings in federal courts. These amendments change the standards and procedures that federal courts must apply when faced with second or successive petitions for writs of habeas corpus. The provisions of the AEDPA apply because petitioner filed his successive habeas application after the effective date of the AEDPA. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997).Before a second or successive habeas petition is filed in a federal district court, a habeas petitioner shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); In re Wilson, 142 F.3d 939, 940 (6th Cir. 1998). Under the AEDPA, 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. Ferrazza v. Tessmer, 36 F. Supp.2d 965, 971 (E.D. Mich. 1999). Unless the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has given its approval for the filing of a second or successive petition, a district court in the Sixth Circuit must transfer the petition to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals no matter how meritorious the district court believes the claim to be. Id. at 971; See also In Re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997). This requirement transfers to the court of appeals a screening function which the district court previously would have performed. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664 (1996).
In the present case, petitioner has previously filed a habeas petition with the federal courts. Although petitioner would not have been required to obtain a certificate of authorization following the dismissal of his petition if the entire petition had been dismissed without prejudice on exhaustion grounds, See Harris v. Stovall, 22 F. Supp.2d 659, 664 (E.D. Mich. 1998), petitioner's first habeas petition was adjudicated on the merits. Petitioner's current application for habeas relief raises the identical claims that were raised and adjudicated on the merits in the first petition. The instant petition therefore qualifies as a "successive petition" for which this Court lacks jurisdiction over in the absence of a certificate of authorization from the Sixth Circuit. See Norris v. Konteh, 67 F. Supp.2d 833, 835 n. 4 (N.D. Ohio 1999). Petitioner's second habeas petition is therefore a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus and he is therefore required to obtain a certificate of authorization.
III. ORDER
Petitioner has not obtained the appellate authorization to file a subsequent petition as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to transfer this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and In Re Sims, 111 F.3d at 47.