Justise v. Warden

N.D. Indiana

Justise v. Warden

DecidedFebruary 8, 2021

Docket3:21-cv-00080

StatusUnknown

This text of Justise v. Warden (Justise v. Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Justise v. Warden, (N.D. Ind. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

CHARLES E. JUSTISE, SR.,

Petitioner,

v. CAUSE NO.: 3:21-CV-80-JD-MGG

WARDEN,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER Charles E. Justice, Sr., a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his 2008 child molestation conviction in Marion County under cause number 49G06-0608-FA-159374.1 (ECF 1.) Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review the petition and dismiss it “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]” A review of public court records reflects that Mr. Justise previously filed a federal habeas petition challenging the same conviction he is challenging here. Justise v. Superintendent, No. 3:12-CV-826, 2014 WL 7272761, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 18, 2014). His petition was denied on the merits, and the court also denied him a certificate of appealability. Id. Mr. Justise appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh

1 In his petition, Mr. Justise lists the docket number for his criminal case as 49G06-1601-PC- 003703, but that is the docket number for his state post-conviction proceeding. See Justise v. State, 129 N.E.3d 839 (Table), 2019 WL 2707509 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Circuit denied his request for a certificate of appealability, and also denied his petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Justise, No. 3:12-CV-826, ECF 36-1 and ECF 36-2.

Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), Mr. Justise cannot proceed with a new habeas petition challenging this same conviction unless he obtains prior authorization from the Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). There is no indication from his filing that he has obtained such authorization. Because this court lacks jurisdiction to hear an unauthorized successive petition, the petition must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a); Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007).

For these reasons, the petition (ECF 1) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. SO ORDERED on February 8, 2021 /s/JON E. DEGUILIO CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

CHARLES E. JUSTISE, SR.,

Petitioner,

v. CAUSE NO.: 3:21-CV-80-JD-MGG

WARDEN,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER Charles E. Justice, Sr., a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his 2008 child molestation conviction in Marion County under cause number 49G06-0608-FA-159374.1 (ECF 1.) Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review the petition and dismiss it “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]” A review of public court records reflects that Mr. Justise previously filed a federal habeas petition challenging the same conviction he is challenging here. Justise v. Superintendent, No. 3:12-CV-826, 2014 WL 7272761, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 18, 2014). His petition was denied on the merits, and the court also denied him a certificate of appealability. Id. Mr. Justise appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh

1 In his petition, Mr. Justise lists the docket number for his criminal case as 49G06-1601-PC- 003703, but that is the docket number for his state post-conviction proceeding. See Justise v. State, 129 N.E.3d 839 (Table), 2019 WL 2707509 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Circuit denied his request for a certificate of appealability, and also denied his petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Justise, No. 3:12-CV-826, ECF 36-1 and ECF 36-2.

Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), Mr. Justise cannot proceed with a new habeas petition challenging this same conviction unless he obtains prior authorization from the Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). There is no indication from his filing that he has obtained such authorization. Because this court lacks jurisdiction to hear an unauthorized successive petition, the petition must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a); Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007).

For these reasons, the petition (ECF 1) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. SO ORDERED on February 8, 2021 /s/JON E. DEGUILIO CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Justise v. Warden, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/justise-v-warden-innd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack