Opinion
No. CIV-20-809-C
11-23-2020
STEVEN GLEN CRADDOCK, Petitioner, v. LUKE PETTIGREW, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed a Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1). United States District Court Judge Robin J. Cauthron has referred the matter to the undersigned magistrate judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). In accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the undersigned has examined the Petition and taken judicial notice of various state court and other records. For the reasons discussed below, the Court should DISMISS the Petition for lack of jurisdiction.
See United States v. Pursley, 577 F.3d 1204, 1214 n.6 (10th Cir. 2009) (exercising discretion "to take judicial notice of publicly-filed records in [this] court and certain other courts concerning matters that bear directly upon the disposition of the case at hand").
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 18, 2011, a Caddo County District Court convicted Petitioner of tampering with a vehicle, malicious injury to property, and two counts of armed robbery in Case No. CF-2010-89. (ECF No. 1:1) (the underlying conviction). On November 27, 2012, in Case No. CIV-12-1309-C, Mr. Craddock filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court, challenging the validity of the underlying conviction. See ECF No. 1, Craddock v. McCollum, Case No. CIV-12-1309-C (W.D. Okla. Nov. 27, 2012). On July 22, 2015, the Court denied relief and entered judgment accordingly. See ECF Nos. 30 & 31, Craddock v. McCollum, Case No. CIV-12-1309-C (W.D. Okla. July 22, 2015). On September 27, 2016, Mr. Craddock sought post-conviction relief in the Caddo County District Court. The district court denied relief and the OCCA affirmed the denial. On August 13, 2020, Mr. Craddock filed the instant case, challenging the underlying conviction, and seeking habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1).
See https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=caddo&number=CF-2010-89.
See https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=caddo&number=CF-2010-89.
See https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=caddo&number=CF-2010-89. --------
II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The Court is required to review habeas petitions promptly and to "summarily dismiss [a] petition without ordering a responsive pleading," Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005), "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." See R. 4, R. Governing § 2254 Cases in U.S. Dist. Ct. Likewise, courts are obligated to examine their jurisdiction sua sponte and dismiss any action where subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506-07 (2006); Berryhill v. Evans, 466 F.3d 934, 938 (10th Cir. 2006).
III. UNAUTHORIZED SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE HABEAS PETITION
"The filing of a second or successive § 2254 application is tightly constrained by the provisions of AEDPA." Case v. Hatch, 731 F.3d 1015, 1026 (10th Cir. 2013). Notably, "[b]efore a second or successive [§ 2254] application ... is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); accord Case, at 1026. If the petitioner does not heed the statutory directive in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), the district court has no jurisdiction to consider his second or successive filing. See In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
As stated, Mr. Craddock has previously challenged the validity of the underlying conviction in Case No. CIV-12-1309-C. See supra. And once again, Mr. Craddock has challenged the underlying conviction by filing the instant case. See supra. Because the Petition in the instant case challenges the same conviction that has been previously challenged, Mr. Craddock would have to seek permission in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals before proceeding in this Court. See supra 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). But a review of the appellate court docket sheet does not show that Petitioner sought such authorization prior to filing the instant case. As a result, this Court has no jurisdiction over the Petition.
Mr. Craddock states that the case "cannot be a successive & 2254 or an A.E.D.P.A. violation as the State lacked jurisdiction to prosecute making Petitioner's sentence illegal and expired." (ECF No. 1:20). This argument has been repeatedly rejected by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Cowan v. Crow, 804 F. App'x 893, 894 (10th Cir. 2020) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction as second or successive where petition challenged state court's jurisdiction); Dopp v. Martin, 750 F. App'x 754, 757 (10th Cir. 2018) ("[T]he jurisdictional nature of Dopp's claim does not exempt his § 2254 application from dismissal for lack of jurisdiction as a successive and unauthorized application."). Accordingly, dismissal of the Petition for lack of jurisdiction is appropriate.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
The Court should DISMISS the Petition for lack of jurisdiction.
V. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
The parties are advised of their right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by December 10, 2020, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The parties are further advised that failure to make timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained herein. Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
VI. STATUS OF REFERRAL
This Report and Recommendation terminates the referral by the District Judge in this matter.
ENTERED on November 23, 2020.
/s/_________
SHON T. ERWIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE