TAYLOR v. SHEPARD, CV415-030. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20150508b83
Visitors: 5
Filed: May 07, 2015
Latest Update: May 07, 2015
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION G.R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . The Court erred by serving this petition upon respondent. It is clear from the face of Lazarus Taylor's 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition that it suffers from a venue defect. He is challenging a conviction out of the Dougherty County Superior Court, which lies within the jurisdiction of the United States Court for the Middle District of Georgia. 28 U.S.C. 90(b)(5). In addition to that defect, respondent has brought to the Court's attentio
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION G.R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . The Court erred by serving this petition upon respondent. It is clear from the face of Lazarus Taylor's 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition that it suffers from a venue defect. He is challenging a conviction out of the Dougherty County Superior Court, which lies within the jurisdiction of the United States Court for the Middle District of Georgia. 28 U.S.C. 90(b)(5). In addition to that defect, respondent has brought to the Court's attention..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
G.R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
The Court erred by serving this petition upon respondent. It is clear from the face of Lazarus Taylor's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition that it suffers from a venue defect. He is challenging a conviction out of the Dougherty County Superior Court, which lies within the jurisdiction of the United States Court for the Middle District of Georgia. 28 U.S.C. § 90(b)(5). In addition to that defect, respondent has brought to the Court's attention that Taylor has previously filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition attacking the same conviction, and it was dismissed as untimely. (Doc. 8-1 at 1); Taylor v. Brown, No. CV112-173 (M.D. Ga. June 11, 2013). This is thus a successive petition. As explained in Rule 9 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, a petitioner presenting a second or successive petition "must obtain an order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) and (4)." Because he has not obtained such an order, it would be pointless and a waste of judicial resources to transfer this case to the Middle District, which also lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive habeas petition absent authorization by the Eleventh Circuit. Hill v. Hopper, 112 F.3d 1088, 1089 (11th Cir. 1997). The petition should be DISMISSED.
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.
Source: Leagle
