Lykus v. Corsini

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 08-2425
EDWARD S. LYKUS,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL CORSINI,
SUPERINTENDENT, BAY STATE CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
AND REHEARING EN BANC
Before
Lynch, Chief Judge,
Torruella, Boudin, Lipez and Howard,
Circuit Judges.
Edward S. Lykus pro se on petition for panel rehearing and
rehearing en banc.
April 28, 2009
Per Curiam. After a panel of this court denied the
petitioner's application for leave to file a second or successive
petition for habeas corpus relief, he filed a petition for
rehearing or rehearing en banc of that denial. For the reasons
discussed below, the petition is stricken.
The habeas statute provides that "[t]he . . . denial of
an authorization to file a second or successive application . . .
shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing." 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(E). Although the statute does not expressly refer to
petitions for rehearing en banc, we join several other circuits in
construing that provision to preclude not only petitions for panel
rehearing but also petitions or suggestions for rehearing en banc.
See In re King, 190 F.3d 479, 481 (6th Cir. 1999); United States v.
Lorentsen, 106 F.3d 278, 279 (9th Cir. 1997); Hatch v. Oklahoma, 92
F.3d 1012, 1017 (10th Cir. 1996), overruled on other grds., Daniels
v. United States, 254 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 2001). Cf. In re Byrd,
269 F.3d 585, 585 (6th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (court may order
rehearing en banc sua sponte); Thompson v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918,
922 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (same).
Accordingly, the petition for rehearing or rehearing en
banc is stricken. The "Motion That No Immediate Action Be Taken On
His Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc" is denied in light
of Petitioner's January 12, 2009 letter to this court.
-2-