United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
D. Whitney Chief United States District Judge.
MATTER is before the Court upon initial review of
Eddie Levord Taylor's unsigned, pro-se pleading, which
this Court construes as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) Also before the Court
are Petitioner's Application to Proceed without
Prepayment of Fees and Costs (“IFP Application”)
(Doc. No. 2), Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 3),
and Request for Production of Documents (Doc. No. 7).
is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina, who, on January
27, 2012, in Mecklenburg County Superior Court, was convicted
after trial by jury of possession of stolen goods, larceny
after breaking or entering, breaking or entering, and
attaining the status of habitual felon. State v.
Taylor, 741 S.E.2d 512, at *1 ( N.C. Ct. App. 2013)
(unpublished). The trial court arrested judgment on the
conviction for possession of stolen goods and sentenced
Petitioner as a habitual felon to two concurrent terms of 146
to 185 months imprisonment. Id. On April 2, 2013,
the North Carolina Court of Appeals filed an opinion finding
no error. Id.
February 19, 2014, Petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court, challenging
his January 27, 2012 judgments. Pet., Taylor v.
Daniels, Civ. No. 3:14-cv-00079-FDW (W.D. N.C. ), Doc.
No. 1. Among Petitioners claims were that documents in his
case were fictitious, statements were falsified, and he was
maliciously and vindictively prosecuted. Id. On
August 15, 2014, the Court granted the State's motion for
summary judgment and denied and dismissed the habeas
petition. Order, id. at Doc. No. 17.
January 4, 2016, Petitioner filed a Complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, naming a number of Defendants, and
alleging that certain procedural aspects of his 2012 case
were unconstitutional. Compl., Taylor v. Maher, et al.,
Civ. No. 3:16-cv-00002-FDW (W.D. N.C. ), Doc. No. 1.
Specifically, Petitioner asserted that he was “seized
and erroneously and maliciously prosecuted using
[Defendants'] forged fraudulent documents/forms[.]”
Compl. 5, id. The Court concluded that
Petitioner's claims were barred by the Supreme
Court's holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477 (1994), and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice on
January 5, 2016. Order, id. at Doc. No. 3.
filed the instant action in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina on February 6,
2017. (Doc. No. 1.) That court transferred it here, where
venue is proper, on September 26, 2017. (Doc. No. 9.) To the
extent the pleading is comprehensible, Petitioner challenges
his 2012 judgments on the grounds that his convictions were
fraudulently obtained, his indictments were fictitious, the
allegations against him were false, and his convictions
violated the double jeopardy and equal protection clauses.
Although Petitioner filed this action as a civil complaint,
the Court construes it as a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because it attacks
the validity of Petitioner's state court judgments and
seeks to have those judgments vacated. (Doc. No. 1 at 5.)
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 without authorization 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 January
2012 judgments. See § 2244(b)(3)(A).
Consequently, the instant 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 Writ of Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C §
2254, (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without
prejudice as an unauthorized, ...