Opinion
1:21-cv-1391
01-20-2022
Dorian Hill, Petitioner, v. Leon Hill, Warden, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Jeffrey J. Helmick, United States District Judge.
On July 19, 2021, pro se Petitioner Dorian L. Hill filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). Because Hill previously filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, (see Case No. 1:17-cv-2596), Respondent filed a motion to transfer this case to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as a second or successive petition. (Doc. No. 4). Hill opposes Respondent's motion, arguing the state court's October 23, 2019 journal entry was a new judgment which permits him to file a new habeas petition to challenge his conviction and sentence. (Doc. No. 5). Hill also filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 6).
Inmates who challenge a state court judgment must seek authorization from a federal appellate court before filing a “second or successive application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); see also In re Stansell, 828 F.3d 412, 414-15 (6th Cir. 2016); King v. Morgan, 807 F.3d 154, 156-57 (6th Cir. 2015). If a petitioner files a second or successive habeas petition without first obtaining permission from the Court of Appeals, “the district court shall transfer the document to [the Sixth Circuit] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.” In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).
The state court's October 23, 2019 journal entry is not a new judgment. That order, entered a few months after Hill filed a motion to “comport with [Ohio Criminal Rule] 32(C), ” (Doc. No. 4-1 at 274), did no more than journalize the trial court's December 9, 1988, and September 21, 1994 sentencing entries, “for the sole purpose of complying with [Ohio Criminal Rule] 32(C).” (Id. at 334). This journal entry was “a simple ‘correct[ion] [of] a technical error'” and, therefore, Hill is not exempted from complying with the requirements of § 2244(b). Askew v. Bradshaw, 636 Fed.Appx. 342, 348 (6th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted) (alterations in original).
Because Hill previously filed a § 2254 petition and did not first submit an application to the Sixth Circuit to file his current petition, I grant Respondent's motion to transfer, (Doc. No. 4), and deny Hill's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 6).
So Ordered.