Free Order on Motion for Certificate of Appealability - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :98-cv—00682-GIVIS Document 24 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
WARREN L. HARRIS, )
Petitioner, )
v. ) Civ. A. No. 98-682-GMS
ROBERT E. SNYDER, g
Warden, )
Respondent. )
O R D E R
At Wilmington this Q day of [ if, ;
IT IS ORDERED that:
Pro se petitioner Warren L. Harris’ "motion for appealabi1ity," which the court construes
to be either a "motion for certificate of appealabi1ity," a "motion to subpoena records," or a
"motion for reconsideration" regarding the COUI't’S 2002 memorandum and order dismissing
Harris’ § 2254 petition, is DENIED. (D.I. 23)
To the extent the Harris’ pending document is a "motion f`or certificate of` appealability,"
the court denies the motion for the same reasons explained in its memorandum and order dated
January 11, 2002. See (D.I. 19; D.I. 20)
To the extent Harris is asking to subpoena records in order to challenge his 1992
conviction, the court denies the request because the court already denied Harris’ habeas petition
in 2002 and closed the case. Id.
To the extent Harris’ pending document is a motion for reconsideration, the court

Case 1:98-cv—00682-Gl\/IS Document 24 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 2 of 2
concludes that the motion constitutes a second or successive § 2254 petition because Harris is
challenging the same 1992 conviction that he challenged in his prior § 2254 petition. See
Pridgen v. Shannon, 380 F.3d 721, 727 (3d Cir. 2004). The record is clear that Harris did not
obtain an order from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing his filing of another § 2254
petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 2244(a) , the court
denies Harris’ motion for lack ofjruisdiction. See Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 139-40
(3d Cir. 2002)("When a second or successive habeas petition is erroneously filed in a district
court without the permission of a court of appeals, the district court’s only option is to dismiss
the petition or transfer it to the court of appeals").
UNITEE S A l E/S DlSTRlg§T JUDGE i
F I L E D
3 — ' _`-`. i `
us. oosmlcr COURT
oasrnncr or oELAwAnE ‘
2