Harvey Lee Preston v. Terry Wilkins

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: December 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-14154
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION HARVEY LEE PRESTON,

Petitioner, Case No. 25-cv-14154

v. Honorable Robert J. White

TERRY WILKINS,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO TRANSFER THE SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Petitioner Harvey Lee Preston, confined at the Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility in Baraga, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. Preston challenges his Oakland County convictions for carjacking, first-degree home invasion, unarmed robbery, and second-degree criminal sexual conduct. Preston’s convictions were affirmed on appeal. People v. Preston, 2012 WL 5853223, No. 298796 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2012); lv. den. 829 N.W.2d 225 (Mich. 2013). Because his petition is a “second or successive petition” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), this Court must direct the Clerk of the Court to transfer the case to the Court of Appeals. Preston previously filed a federal habeas corpus petition, which was denied on the merits. Preston v. Gidley, 2017 WL 4572336; No.14-10606 (E.D. Mich. Oct.

12, 2017); app. dism. No. 17-2389 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 2018). He has since been denied permission at least fifteen times by the Sixth Circuit to file a successive federal habeas petition. In re Preston, No. 18-1847 (6th Cir. Nov. 26, 2018); In Re

Preston, No. 20-1641 (6th Cir. Dec. 8, 2020); In Re Preston, No. 21-1071 (6th Cir. May 12, 2021); In Re Preston, No. 21-2620 (6th Cir. Sep. 23, 2021); In Re Preston, No. 22-1072 (6th Cir. July 28, 2022); In Re Preston, No. 22-1723 (6th Cir. Sept. 28, 2022); In Re Preston, No. 24-1010 (6th Cir. Feb. 13, 2024); In Re Preston, No.

24-1052 (6th Cir. Feb. 21, 2024); In Re Preston, No. 24-1067 (6th Cir. Mar. 7, 2024); In Re Preston, No. 24-1232 (6th Cir. Apr. 17, 2024); In Re Preston, No. 24- 1521 (6th Cir. Nov. 1, 2024); In Re Preston, No. 24-1597 (6th Cir. Nov. 1, 2024);

In Re Preston, No. 25-1045 (6th Cir. Mar. 20, 2025); In Re Preston, No. 25-1162 (6th Cir. Mar. 20, 2025); In Re Preston, No. 25-1741 (6th Cir. Dec. 23, 2025). Before filing a habeas petition challenging a conviction previously challenged in a prior habeas petition, the petitioner must “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). Federal district courts lack jurisdiction to consider successive habeas petitions absent preauthorization from the court of appeals. Franklin v. Jenkins, 839 F.3d 465, 473 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)).

When a petitioner files a second or successive habeas petition in the district court without preauthorization, the district court must transfer the case to the court of appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631; In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997). Here,

Preston has not obtained appellate authorization to file a successive habeas petition as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Accordingly, It is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transfer this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631

for a determination of whether Petitioner may file a successive petition. SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 29, 2025 s/Robert J. White Robert J. White United States District Judge