Opinion
3:21-CV-424-RLM-MGG
06-16-2021
GEORGE METCALF, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
ROBERT L. MILLER, JR. JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
George Metcalf, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition attempting to challenge a prison disciplinary hearing (ISP 20-09-30) held at the Indiana State Prison where the Disciplinary Hearing Officer found him guilty of using a controlled substance in violation of Indiana Department of Correction Policy B-202 on November 15, 2020. ECF 1, 1-1 at 3. This isn't not the first time Mr. Metcalf has brought a habeas corpus petition challenging that hearing. He challenged this same proceeding in Metcalf v. Warden, Cause No. 3:21-CV-35-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind. filed Jan. 14, 2021). In that case, the court dismissed the petition pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4 because Mr. Metcalf didn't lose any credit time and wasn't demoted in credit class as a result of the discipline.
This, then, 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). Because Mr. Metcalf hasn't obtained authorization from the Seventh Circuit to file a successive petition, the court DISMISSES this case for want of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED