United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
HONORABLE MATTHEW F. LEITMAN JUDGE.
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §
STEVEN WHALEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
prisoner Carl Edward Johns (“Petitioner”), has
filed a pro se “Petition for Writ of Error Coram
Nobis” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), in which
he contests the validity of his current confinement.
Petitioner was convicted of two counts of first-degree felony
murder following a jury trial in the Muskegon County Circuit
Court and was sentenced to concurrent terms of life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole in 1995.
Petitioner has previously filed a habeas petitions in federal
court challenging the same convictions. For the following
reasons, the Court concludes that it must transfer this case
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2241
et seq., an individual seeking to file a
“second or successive” habeas petition must ask
the appropriate court of appeals for an order directing the
district court to consider the petition. See 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Stewart v.
Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 641 (1998); In re
Wilson, 142 F.3d 939, 940 (6th Cir. 1998). This
requirement transfers to the court of appeals a screening
function which the district court previously performed.
Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664 (1996).
brings the instant action pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1651(a). Regardless of the statutory label
placed on the pleading, however, habeas petitions brought by
state prisoners are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
See Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 428
(1997) (Where a statute specifically addresses the particular
issue at hand, it is that authority, and not the All Writs
Act that is controlling.”); Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (holding that habeas
corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner
challenging the fact or duration of confinement); Byrd v.
Bagley, 37 Fed.Appx. 94, 95 (6th Cir. 2002); Black
v. State of Florida, No. 4:09cv30-SPM/WCS, 2009 WL
1605410, *2-4 (N.D. Fl. June 4, 2009) (dismissing admiralty
petition for failure to state claim where petitioner was
already pursuing his sole federal remedy in a habeas petition
in the district where he was convicted). The provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b) which govern the filing of successive
petitions by state prisoners under § 2254 therefore
apply equally to habeas petitions filed by a state prisoner
under other statutes, such as 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the
general habeas statute, see Long v. Commonwealth of
Kentucky, 80 Fed.Appx. 410, 414 (6th Cir. 2003);
Byrd, 37 Fed.Appx. at 95, 28 U.S.C. § 1333,
which governs suits in admiralty, maritime and prize cases,
see Scott v. Small, No. EDCV 10-00492-R (MLG), 2010
WL 1540932, *2 (C.D. Ca. April 15, 2010), 28 U.S.C. §
2243, see Welch v. Brown, 541 F.Supp. 259, 261-62
(D.C. Ohio 1982), and 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the All Writs
Act, see Brennan v. Wall, 100 Fed.Appx. 4, 5 (1st
has previously filed a federal habeas petition challenging
the same state court convictions at issue in the instant
petition, which was denied and dismissed with prejudice.
See Johns v. Elo, No. 99-CV-76330 (E.D. Mich. Dec.
8, 2000) (adopting magistrate judge's report dismissing
claims for lack of merit and/or based upon procedural
default). Additionally, he has previously been denied
permission to file a second or successive habeas petition.
See In re Carl E. Johns, No. 18-1467 (6th Cir. Aug.
22, 2018). Petitioner has neither sought nor obtained
appellate authorization to file another subsequent habeas
petition as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
The Court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to
transfer this case to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
and Sims v. Terbush, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997)
(“when a prisoner has sought § 2244(b)(3)
permission from the district court, or when a second or
successive petition for habeas corpus relief . . . is filed
in the district court without § 2244(b)(3) authorization
from this court, the district court shall transfer the
document to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
28 U.S.C. § 1631 provides in
pertinent part that:
Whenever a civil action is filed in a court . . . and
that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the
court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer
such action . . . to any other such court in which the action
. . . could have been brought at the time it was filed . . .,
and the action . . . shall proceed as if it had been filed in
. . . the court to which it is transferred on the ...