United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUZANNE MITCHELL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Walker (Petitioner), a state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks
habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc.
United States District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti has referred
the matter for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 5.
required by Rule 4 of the rules guiding § 2254
proceedings,  the undersigned has examined the petition,
along with Petitioner's supporting brief and exhibits,
and recommends the summary dismissal of Petitioner's four
claims for relief and, consequently, the summary dismissal of
Petitioner's first federal action.
pleaded guilty in October 1971 to a charge of murder, for
which he was sentenced to life imprisonment, Case No.
CRF-71-1292, District Court of Oklahoma County. Doc. 1, at 1.
He sought § 2254 habeas relief from this Court in April
1991 because the state court held “[n]o competency
hearing, ” and “violat[ed his] right against
self-incrimination.” (Walker v. Reynolds, Case
No. CIV-91-590-T, Petition at 3 (W.D. Okla., filed and
stamped April 30, 1991)). This Court dismissed the petition
on the merits. Walker, Case No. CIV-91-590-T, Report
and Recommendation (W.D. Okla., filed July 31, 1991),
adopted, Order (W.D. Okla., filed Sept. 3, 1991).
Petitioner did not appeal.
August 1995, Petitioner sought leave to amend the petition,
but the magistrate judge found the petition “[was] a
photocopy” of Petitioner's 1991 petition. This
Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation and dismissed the second petition sua
sponte according to Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing
§ 2254 Cases. Walker v. Reynolds, Case No.
CIV-95-541-T, Order (W.D. Okla., filed August 31, 1995).
Petitioner's current petition.
Petitioner does not acknowledge his previous federal
implicates the same conviction and sentence in the instant
case, Doc. 1, at 1. But he neglects to acknowledge his
previous federal petitions challenging the same. See
Grounds for habeas relief.
requests habeas relief on four grounds, the first, that the
“state trial court lacked jurisdiction.”
Id. at 5. Second, he contends the state court
violated due process “because of petitioner's
disabilities” and because “state courts refused
to comply with their own rules and laws.” Id.
at 6. Then, third, he maintains the state courts denied due
process by “issuing orders in conflict with clearly
established federal laws.” Id. at 8. Last,
Petitioner urges application of “new law” from
the “D.C. Federal Appeals Court, ” which he
contends “hold[s that] 30 years for murder . . .
violates 8th. Amend[ment].” Id. at 9. He asks
the court to “[g]rant habeas relief, or remand to state
court for ‘further-processing' of a hearing, or
bring Petitioner before this Court for an
‘inquiry.'” Id. at 14.
Petitioner's action is second or successive.
dismissal of Petitioner's first § 2254 habeas
petition was a decision on the merits and, consequently, his
present habeas challenge to that same judgment and sentence
is second or successive for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b). See In re Rains, 659 F.3d 1274, 1275 (10th
Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
law provides that “[b]efore a second or successive
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). When a
petition is “second or successive, ” and the
Tenth Circuit has not granted authorization, the court lacks
jurisdiction. See In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251
(10th Cir. 2008). Petitioner does not allege that ...