Woodall v. Pennsylvania

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
___________________________________
)
ERNEST WOODALL, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. 23-cv-02464 (ACR)
)
PENNSYLVANIA, et al., )
)
Respondents. )
___________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner Ernest Woodall, proceeding pro se, is a Pennsylvania state prisoner. This
matter is before the Court on his pleading titled “ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL LAW
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,” Dkt. 1 (Petition), which the Court construes as a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Reed v. Whitmer, No. 1:22-CV-1653 (TNM),
2023 WL 2967795, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 17, 2023) (collecting cases). The Court lacks jurisdiction
because the Petition is not properly brought in this District and is an improper successive
petition.
Section 2254 authorizes federal courts to “entertain an application for a writ of habeas
corpus in [sic] behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the
ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Such a petition may proceed only “in the district court for the
district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the district [where] the State
court was held which convicted and sentenced [petitioner,] and each of such district courts shall
have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application.” Id. § 2241(d). Further, to file a
1
second or successive petition, the petitioner first must “move in the appropriate court of appeals
for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” Id. § 2244(b)(3)(A); see
also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007).
First, Petitioner has no recourse in this District. Habeas review under § 2254 is only
available “in the district court for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the district
court for the district [where] the State court was held which convicted and sentenced” Petitioner.
28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Because Petitioner is a Pennsylvania state prisoner convicted and
sentenced by a Pennsylvania state court, this Court does not have jurisdiction over his Petition.
Second, the Court finds that the Petition is successive. District courts lack jurisdiction
over successive habeas petitions filed without an order from the “appropriate court of appeals . . .
authorizing the district court to consider the application.” Id. § 2244(b)(3)(A); see also Burton,
549 U.S. at 157. Petitioner filed a prior unsuccessful § 2254 petition in the Western District of
Pennsylvania. Petition, Woodall v. Walsh, et al., (W.D. Pa. May 10, 2011) (2:11-cv-00607);
Report and Recommendation, id. (Aug. 1, 2013); Memorandum Order, id. (Nov. 21, 2013).
Consequently, no district court may entertain a subsequent petition filed without authorization
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).
Petitioner did not obtain the Third Circuit’s authorization, so the Court lacks jurisdiction to
consider the Petition’s merits. Burton, 549 U.S. at 157.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Dkt. 1,
is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is
directed to close this case.
____________________________
DATE: March 6, 2024 ANA C. REYES
United States District Judge
2