Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-017
01-09-2017
GREGORY KONRATH, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Petition under 28 U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Gregory Konrath, a pro se prisoner, on January 3, 2017. For the reasons set forth below, this case is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
Gregory Konrath, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the prison disciplinary hearing (WCC 16-08-144) where a disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) at the Westville Correctional Facility found him guilty of Violating State Law in violation of A-100. This is not the first time that Konrath has brought a habeas corpus petition challenging that hearing. In Konrath v. Superintendent, 3:16-CV-809 (N.D. Ind. filed November 25, 2016), he challenged this same proceeding. In that case, the court dismissed the petition pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4 because the ground presented was meritless.
As such, this is an unauthorized successive petition over which this court has no jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). "A district court must dismiss a second or successive petition, without awaiting any response from the government, unless the court of appeals has given approval for its filing." Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996) (emphasis in original). Here, Konrath has not obtained authorization from the Seventh Circuit to file a successive petition.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, this case is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. DATED: January 9, 2017
/s/ Rudy Lozano, Judge
United States District Court