Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00323/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00323-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wendy Kelley
Defendant
Phillip Lee Willyard
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

PHILLIP LEE WILLYARD 

ADC# 152418 PETITIONER

v. Case No 5:16-cv-00323 KGB/BD

WENDY KELLEY, Director,

Arkansas Department of Correction, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

The Court has carefully reviewed the Recommended Disposition filed by United States 

Magistrate Judge Beth Deere (Dkt. No. 4). Judge Deere determined that this Court does not have 

jurisdiction to hear petitioner Phillip Lee Willyard’s petition for habeas corpus as this is Mr. 

Willyard’s second federal habeas corpus petition and Mr. Willyard has not received an order 

from the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit authorizing this Court to consider this petition. 

The parties have not filed objections to the Recommended Disposition. However, Mr. Willyard 

has filed a request for an extension of time of at least 60 days so that he can request permission 

from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive petition (Dkt. No. 5).

The Court concludes that the Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby is, 

approved and adopted as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 4). Mr. Willyard’s 

motion for an extension of time is denied, as the Court does not have jurisdiction over this action 

(Dkt. No. 5). See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007) (“Burton’s 2002 petition was a 

‘second or successive’ habeas application for which he did not seek, much less obtain, 

authorization to file. . . . Because he did not do so, the District Court was without jurisdiction to 

entertain it.”). Mr. Willyard’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied and dismissed without 

prejudice (Dkt. No. 2). 

Case 5:16-cv-00323-KGB Document 6 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 2
2

When entering a final order adverse to a habeas corpus petitioner, the Court must issue or 

deny a certificate of appealability. Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. A 

certificate of appealability may issue only if a petitioner has made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). In this case, there is no basis for this 

court to issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is denied. 

So ordered this 1st day of December, 2016.

_________________________________

Kristine G. Baker

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-00323-KGB Document 6 Filed 12/01/16 Page 2 of 2