Opinion
No. 3:11 CV 15 JM.
February 3, 2011
OPINION AND ORDER
Dale Manzell McDonald, a pro se prisoner, filed this habeas corpus petition. Once again, he is attempting to challenge his conviction and 50 year sentence by the Marshall Superior Court under cause number 50D01-9701-CV-4. In McDonald v. Superintendent, 3:07-CV-575 (N.D. Ind. filed November 20, 2007), he also challenged that same state court proceeding. His previous habeas petition was denied because it was untimely. A "prior untimely petition . . . is not a curable technical or procedural deficiency but rather operates as an irremediable defect barring consideration of the petitioner's substantive claims." Altman v. Benik, 337 F. 764, 766 (7th Cir. 2003). Therefore this case is a successive habeas corpus petition.
This court lacks jurisdiction to hear an unauthorized second or successive habeas petition. 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). Because McDonald has not obtained authorization from the court of appeals to file a successive petition, this case is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
February 3, 2011