Waldon v. Bauman ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Mon Pei ri DARRYL L. WALDON, #632025, Fa oes Urs Petitioner, = □□ co □□ we CASE NO. 2:23-CV-13057 v. HON. JONATHAN J.C. GREY CATHERINE BAUMAN, Respondent. ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT This a pro se habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Michigan prisoner Darryl L. Waldon! (“Petitioner”), confined at the Alger Correctional Facility in Munising, Michigan, was convicted of second-degree murder, two counts of assault with intent to commit murder, and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony following a jury trial in the Macomb County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to 31 years 3 months to 50 years in prison on the murder conviction, concurrent terms of 15 to 30 years in prison on the assault convictions, and concurrent terms of 2 years in prison on the felony firearm convictions, to be served consecutively to the other sentences, in 2007. See In some cases, including his direct state appeals and his prior federal habeas case, Petitioner’s first name is spelled “Daryl.” Michigan Department of Corrections Offender Tracking Information System, https://mdocweb.state.mi.us/OTIS2/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=632025. — In his pleadings, he raises seven sentencing claims. ECF No. 1. Petitioner, however, has previously filed a federal habeas petition challenging the same convictions and sentences at issue in this case, which was denied on the merits. See Waldon v. Burt, No. 12-CV-14649, 2014 WL 840276 (E.D. Mich. March 4, 2014) (Drain, J.). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit also denied a certificate of appealability. See Waldon v. Burt, No. 14-1406 (6th Cir. Sept. 24, 2014). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“SAEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seg., an individual seeking to file a “second or successive” federal habeas petition must ask the appropriate court of appeals for an order directing the district court to consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 641 (1998); In re Wilson, 142 F.3d 939, 940 (6th Cir. 1998). This requirement transfers to the court of appeals a screening function which the district court previously performed. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664 (1996). Petitioner has neither sought nor obtained appellate authorization to file a second or successive federal habeas petition as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Consequently, the Court concludes that it must transfer this case to the Sixth Circuit. Accordingly, The Court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to transfer this case to the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631? and Sims v. Terbush, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997) (“when a prisoner has sought § 2244(b)(3) permission from the district court, or when a second or successive petition for habeas corpus relief... is filed in the district court without § 2244(b)(3) authorization from this court, the district court shall transfer the document to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631”). s/ David R. Grand DAVID R. GRAND United States Magistrate Judge Dated: January 19, 2024 28 U.S.C. § 1631 provides in pertinent part that: Whenever a civil action is filed in a court . . . and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action . . . to any other such court in which the action . . . could have been brought at the time it was filed... , and the action . . . shall proceed as if it had been filed in... the court to which it is transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed in. . . the court from which it was transferred.