From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Beard v. Cockrell

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
Dec 5, 2002
Civil Action No. 4:02-CV-935-Y (N.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2002)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 4:02-CV-935-Y

December 5, 2002


ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL


In connection with the above-styled and numbered cause, this Court has reviewed the petition for habeas corpus by a person in state custody. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243, this habeas-corpus petition should be summarily dismissed. From the face of the petition, and from court records of which this Court can take judicial notice, the Court determines that this is a successive petition filed without the permission of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) and (b)(3)(A)

Section 2243, governing applications for writ of habeas corpus, provides:

A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person is not entitled thereto.
28 U.S.C.A. § 2243 (West Supp. 2002) (emphasis added). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases provides:
The original petition shall be promptly presented to a judge of the district court in accordance with the procedure of the court for the assignment of its business. The petition shall be examined promptly by the judge to whom it is assigned. If it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be notified.

RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES, RuLE 4 (emphasis added). See Kiser v. Johnson, 163 F.3d 326, 328 (5th cir. 1999) (recognizing a district court's authority under Rule 4 to examine and dismiss frivolous habeas petitions prior to any answer or other pleading by the state).

Petitioner Joe Louis Beard raises challenges to his January 1996 conviction for the offense of aggravated robbery in cause number 0595420 in the 372nd District Court of Tarrant County, Texas. (Pet. ¶¶ 1-4.) Beard fails to acknowledge that he has previously challenged this same conviction through a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this division styled Beard v. Johnson, cause number 4:00-CV-319-Y. That petition was denied in a judgment filed May 17, 2000, and although Beard filed a notice of appeal, the court of appeals denied the request for certificate of appealability in a judgment entered as mandate on the docket of the district court on December 18, 2000.

The court takes judicial notice of the records of this Court in Beard v. Johnson, No. 4:00-CV-319-Y.

See Id. The court of appeals assigned Beard's appeal cause number 00-10663.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) provides that a second petition filed by a person attacking a state-court conviction under § 2254 must be certified by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals. These provisions require dismissal of a second or successive habeas proceeding unless specified conditions are met. The Supreme Court observed that this law simply transfers from the district court to the court of appeals a screening function which would previously have been performed by the district court as required by . . . Rule 9(b). Since Beard's present petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was filed after the effective date of the AEDPA, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the petition unless leave to file the same is granted by the court of appeals. Petitioner Beard has not obtained an order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to review his second petition for habeas-corpus relief. As a result, the Court finds that Beard's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must be dismissed without prejudice to his right to file a motion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for leave to file a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (West Supp. 2002).

See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(b)(2) (West Supp. 2002).

Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664 (1996)

It is therefore ORDERED that Joe Louis Beard's November 13, 2002, Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be, and is hereby, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to his right to file a motion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for leave to file a second or successive petition.


Summaries of

Beard v. Cockrell

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
Dec 5, 2002
Civil Action No. 4:02-CV-935-Y (N.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2002)
Case details for

Beard v. Cockrell

Case Details

Full title:Joe Louis Beard, (#743543), Petitioner, v. Janie Cockrell, Director…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

Date published: Dec 5, 2002

Citations

Civil Action No. 4:02-CV-935-Y (N.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2002)