United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
COLELL B. STEELE, Petitioner,
DENNIS DANIELS, Respondent.
D. Whitney Chief United States District Judge.
MATTER is before the Court upon initial review of
Petitioner Colell B. Steele's pro se Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No.
1.) Also before the Court is Petitioner's Motion to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.)
is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina, who was
convicted on May 4, 2011, following a jury trial in
Mecklenburg County Superior Court, of felony fleeing to elude
arrest and attaining the status of a habitual felon.
State v. Steele, 734 S.E.2d 139, 2012 WL 5392624, at
*1 ( N.C. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2012) (unpublished). Petitioner
was sentenced to 150-189 months' imprisonment.
Id. Judgment was affirmed on appeal. Id. at
unsuccessfully pursuing post-conviction relief in the state
courts, Petitioner timely filed a § 2254 petition for
writ of habeas corpus in this Court, challenging his May 2011
judgment. Pet., 3:13-cv-00206-RJC (W.D. N.C. filed Mar. 27,
2013), Doc. No. 1. The Court denied and dismissed the
petition on June 6, 2013. Order, id. at Doc. No. 3.
Petitioner's appeal was dismissed, Steele v.
Ball, 544 F.App'x 219 (4th Cir Oct. 25, 2013)
(unpublished), and his petition for writ of certiorari was
denied, Steele v. Hunt, 134 S.Ct. 2137 (2014) (Mem).
filed the instant § 2254 Petition on September 6, 2017,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of North Carolina. (Pet. 15, Doc. No. 1.) He, again,
challenges the validity of his May 2011 judgment. (Pet. 1,
13-14.) The Eastern District transferred the matter here,
where venue is proper. (Transfer Order, Doc. No. 3.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court is guided by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts, which directs
district courts to examine habeas petitions promptly. Rule 4,
28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2254. When it plainly appears from
the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is
not entitled to relief, the court must dismiss the motion.
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
expressly limits a petitioner's ability to attack the
same criminal judgment in multiple collateral proceedings. If
a federal district court denies or dismisses a state
prisoner's § 2254 petition with prejudice, the
prisoner generally may not file another § 2254 petition
challenging the same state criminal judgment unless he has
obtained permission to do so from the appropriate federal
court of appeals. See 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(3)(A). If the prisoner files a subsequent § 2254
petition challenging the same state criminal judgment without
getting permission from the appropriate federal court of
appeals, the district court is required to dismiss the
petition without considering its merits. See Burton v.
Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007) (holding that failure
of petitioner to obtain authorization to file a “second
or successive” petition deprived the district court of
jurisdiction to consider the second or successive petition
“in the first place”); United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003) (“In
the absence of pre-filing authorization, the district court
lacks jurisdiction to consider an application containing
abusive or repetitive claims.”) (citation omitted).
has not demonstrated that he has obtained the required
authorization from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to
file a successive habeas petition challenging his May 2011
judgment. See § 2244(b)(3)(A). Accordingly,
this Petition must be dismissed. See Burton, 549
U.S. at 153; Winestock. 340 F.3d at 205.
IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C §
2254, (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without
prejudice as an unauthorized, ...