Free Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00217-JJF Document 4 Filed 07/19/2007 Page1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
WILLIAM GREGORY SUMMERS, :
Petitioner, :
v. Q Civil Action No. 07—2l7-JJF
THOMAS CARROLL, :
Warden, and ATTORNEY :
GENERAL OF THE STATE :
OF DELAWARE, :
Respondents. Q
O R D E R
. . . 6
At Wilmington this I J day of July, 2007;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
I. Petitioner William Gregroy Summers' Application For A
Writ Of Habeas Corpus Filed Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is
DISMISSED and the writ is DENIED as second or successive.l (D.I.
l.) The instant Application is Petitioner’s second habeas
challenge to his 1999 conviction and life sentence as an habitual
offender for first degree robbery and third degree assault. The
Honorable Kent A. Jordan denied Petitioner's first habeas
application on the merits.? See Summers v. Carroll, Civ. A. No.
lThis matter was originally assigned to the Vacant
Judgeship, but was re—assigned to the undersigned on July l8,
2007.
2Five claims were denied as procedurally barred, and one
claim was denied for failing to satisfy the requirements of §
2254(d)(l).

Case 1:07-cv-00217-JJF Document 4 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 2 of 3
04—132—KAJ, Mem. Op. (D. Del. May 16, 2004). The record reveals
that Petitioner filed the instant Application without first
obtaining permission from the Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. gee 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(l). Therefore, the Court does
not have the authority to review the Application. Robinson v.
Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 139 (3d Cir. 2002)(holding that when a
second or successive habeas petition is erroneously filed “in a
district court without the permission of the court of appeals,
the district court's only option is to dismiss the petition or
transfer it to the court of appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1631.”).
2. Petitioner has failed to make a “substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2), and a certificate of appealability is not
warranted. Qeg United States v. Eyer, 113 F.3d 470 (3d Cir.
1997); 3rd Cir. LAR 22.2 (2002).
3. Pursuant to Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, the Clerk
shall forthwith serve a copy of the Application and this Order
upon: (1) the above—named Warden of the facility in which
Petitioner is housed; and (2) the Attorney General for the State
of Delaware.
4. The Clerk shall also send a copy of this Order to
2

Case 1:07-cv-00217-JJF Document 4 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 3 of 3
the Petitioner at his address on record.
U :__ Distri 3