IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
November 9, 2007
JAN F. BECKER, PETITIONER,
WARDEN HUDSON, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gilbert, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In this habeas corpus action, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner brings a collateral attack on his 2001 conviction on three counts involving sexual assault, for which he is serving a 30-year sentence.
Petitioner was convicted in the state of Ohio; he is also confined in that state. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the merits of this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). The Court could transfer this action to the appropriate district court in Ohio. However, exhibits attached to the petition indicate that Petitioner has already filed at least one unsuccessful federal habeas corpus petition. See Becker v. Bradshaw, Case No. 04-cv-601-DCN (N.D. Ohio, filed March 29, 2004), aff'd, Appeal No. 04-3816 (6th Cir., Dec. 27, 2005). It does not appear that Petitioner has been granted leave to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244.
The Court further notes that Petitioner has at least two other habeas corpus petitions are currently pending in the Northern District of Ohio. Each of these cases is virtually identical to the instant petition, except that one names a myriad of respondents in Florida, while the other names respondents in Virginia. See Becker v. Ohio Attorney General, Case No. 07-cv-2928-PCD (N.D. Ohio, filed Sept. 25, 2007); Becker v. Hudson, Case No. 07-cv-3090-KMO (N.D. Ohio, filed Oct. 9, 2007). Therefore, in the interest of conserving judicial resources, this Court sees no need to transfer this action to Ohio.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice, and all pending motions are now MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
J. Phil Gilbert U. S. District Judge
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.