Opinion
Case No. 3:16-CV-328 JVB
01-12-2017
ERIC WILBURN, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
Eric Wilburn, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition attempting to challenge a prison disciplinary proceeding (ISO 16-01-0010) held at the Indiana State Prison where the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of Disorderly Conduct in violation of B-236 on January 27, 2016, and sanctioned him with the loss of 30 days earned credit time. This is not the first time that Wilburn has brought a habeas corpus petition challenging that hearing. In Wilburn v. Superintendent, 3:16-CV-108 (N.D. Ind. filed February 29, 2016), he challenged this same proceeding. In that case, the Court dismissed the petition pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4 because all of the claims were procedural defaulted.
As such, this is an unauthorized successive petition over which the 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 Wilburn has not obtained authorization from the Seventh Circuit to file a successive petition, the Court DISMISSES this case for want of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED on January 12, 2017.
s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE