December 13, 2013
ROBERT D. HAUGHIE Petitioner
STATE OF MARYLAND Respondent.
WILLIAM D. QUARLES, Jr., District Judge.
The above-styled Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed on December 2, 2013, together with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Motion for Appointment of Counsel, and Motion for Teleconference. Because he appears to be indigent, Petitioner's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis shall be granted. Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel shall be denied as the Petition must be dismissed for the reasons set forth below. Petitioner's Motion for Teleconference shall be denied in part and granted in part.
The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and alleges error in Petitioner's 1982 conviction for first degree rape, assault with intent to murder, and possession of a deadly weapon. ECF. No. 1. This is the fourth occasion Petitioner has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus regarding this conviction. See Haughie v. Sacchett, Civil Action AW-97-2460 (D. Md. 1997), Haughie v. State of Maryland, Civil Action AW-99-379 (D. Md. 1999), and Haughie v. Sowers, Civil Action AW-06-1956 (D. Md. 2006).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Petitioner may only file a second or successive habeas corpus petition if he has first moved the appropriate circuit court for an order authorizing the district court to consider his application. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3); Felker v. Turpin, 83 F.3d 1303, 1305-07 (11th Cir.1996). The pending application is a successive one. Before this Court may consider the merits in the pending petition, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit must enter an order authorizing this Court to consider the Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief. See § 2244(b)(3)(A); see In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1197-98 (4th Cir.1997) ( en banc ). Because it does not appear that Petitioner has complied with this "gatekeeper" provision, his pending application for habeas corpus relief must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has set forth instructions for the filing of a "motion" to obtain the aforementioned authorization Order. The procedural requirements and deadlines for filing the "motion" are extensive. Consequently, this Court has attached hereto a packet of instructions promulgated by the Fourth Circuit which addresses the comprehensive procedure to be followed should Petitioner wish to seek authorization to file a successive petition with the appellate court. It is to be emphasized that Petitioner must file the "motion" with the Fourth Circuit and obtain authorization to file his successive petition before this Court may examine his claims.
When a district court dismisses a habeas petition solely on procedural grounds, a Certificate of Appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both "(1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right' and (2) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.'" Rouse v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting Slack v. Daniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that a Certificate of Appealability is warranted in this case, therefore, it shall not issue.
A separate Order follows.