From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Justise v. Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION
Feb 8, 2021
CAUSE NO.: 3:21-CV-80-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind. Feb. 8, 2021)

Opinion

CAUSE NO.: 3:21-CV-80-JD-MGG

02-08-2021

CHARLES E. JUSTISE, SR., Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.


OPINION AND ORDER

Charles E. Justice, Sr., a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his 2008 child molestation conviction in Marion County under cause number 49G06-0608-FA-159374. (ECF 1.) Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review the petition and dismiss it "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]"

In his petition, Mr. Justise lists the docket number for his criminal case as 49G06-1601-PC-003703, but that is the docket number for his state post-conviction proceeding. See Justise v. State, 129 N.E.3d 839 (Table), 2019 WL 2707509 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). --------

A review of public court records reflects that Mr. Justise previously filed a federal habeas petition challenging the same conviction he is challenging here. Justise v. Superintendent, No. 3:12-CV-826, 2014 WL 7272761, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 18, 2014). His petition was denied on the merits, and the court also denied him a certificate of appealability. Id. Mr. Justise appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied his request for a certificate of appealability, and also denied his petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Justise, No. 3:12-CV-826, ECF 36-1 and ECF 36-2.

Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), Mr. Justise cannot proceed with a new habeas petition challenging this same conviction unless he obtains prior authorization from the Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). There is no indication from his filing that he has obtained such authorization. Because this court lacks jurisdiction to hear an unauthorized successive petition, the petition must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a); Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007).

For these reasons, the petition (ECF 1) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.

SO ORDERED on February 8, 2021

/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO

CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Summaries of

Justise v. Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION
Feb 8, 2021
CAUSE NO.: 3:21-CV-80-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind. Feb. 8, 2021)
Case details for

Justise v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES E. JUSTISE, SR., Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

Date published: Feb 8, 2021

Citations

CAUSE NO.: 3:21-CV-80-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind. Feb. 8, 2021)