Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Taylor v. Robert

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


March 1, 2010

JAMES EARL TAYLOR, PETITIONER,
v.
BRADLEY J. ROBERT, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This cause is before the Court on Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). Petitioner, an inmate in the Centralia Correctional Center (CCC), brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his 1976 murder and kidnapping convictions in the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Effingham County, Illinois.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district court judge, "[i]f 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." After carefully reviewing the petition in the present case, the Court concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, and the petition must be dismissed.

The Court's records show that petitioner has previously brought two prior § 2254 petitions for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his convictions. See, Taylor v. Peters, 1993 WL 503469, at *1 (7th Cir. Dec. 8, 1993). This Court dismissed the first petition on the merits. Id. This Court dismissed the second petition for abuse of the writ. Id. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) now provides that "[b]efore a second or successive application permitted by this section 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."

Because petitioner did not obtain permission from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to maintain the instant § 2254 application in this Court, the Court lacks authority to grant petitioner the relief he seeks. Accordingly, the instant action must be dismissed.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE THIS CASE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions are DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL J. REAGAN United States District Judge

20100301

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.