UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT RAMSEY,

Petitioner,

Case Number 15-11083

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

BONITA HOFFNER,

Respondent.

________________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE

COURT OF APPEALS AS A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE PETITION

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(B)(3)(A)

Petitioner Robert Ramsey, presently confined at the Lakeland Correctional Facility in

Coldwater, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

The petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and felony firearm in the Wayne County,

Michigan circuit court and was sentenced to life imprisonment for first-degree murder and a

consecutive sentence of two years in prison for the firearm offense. This Court previously denied

a petition for habeas corpus from the petitioner challenging these convictions. The Court therefore

will transfer the petition to the court of appeals because the petitioner did not obtain authorization

to file a second or successive petition from the court of appeals before filing his petition.

I.

In 2004, a Wayne County, Michigan circuit court jury found the petitioner guilty of firstdegree murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.316, and felony firearm, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b. 

On September 17, 2004, the trial court sentenced the petitioner to life imprisonment without the

possibility of parole for the murder conviction and a consecutive term of two years in prison for the

2:15-cv-11083-DML-MKM Doc # 3 Filed 04/20/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 29
felony firearm conviction. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the petitioner’s convictions. 

People v. Ramsey, No. 266371, 2007 WL 1138487 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2007). On July 30,

2007, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. People v. Ramsey, 479 Mich. 868; 735

N.W.2d 234 (2007).

The petitioner subsequently challenged his convictions in a petition for habeas corpus, which

was denied on the merits. Ramsey v. Berghuis, No. 07-13563 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 2009). The

petitioner appealed the Court’s decision and was granted a certificate of appealability on his claim

that the evidence was insufficient to support his murder conviction. The United States Court of

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Court’s judgment, Ramsey v. Berguis (sic), No. 10-1428

(6th Cir. May 19, 2011), and on January 9, 2012, the United States Supreme Court denied the

petitioner’s application for a writ of certiorari. Ramsey v. Berghuis, 132 S. Ct. 1038 (2012) (table). 

In 2014, the petitioner filed a second habeas corpus petition challenging the same convictions

for first-degree murder and felony firearm. He alleged that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel

was violated because he was not represented by counsel at his initial arraignment in state court. The

Court transferred the petition to the court of appeals as a second or successive petition. See Ramsey

v. Haas, No. 14-12759 (E.D. Mich. July 24, 2014). The Sixth Circuit denied permission to file a

second or successive petition. In re: Robert Ramsey, No. 14-1944 (6th Cir. Feb. 18, 2015).

On March 23, 2015, the petitioner filed his current petition for habeas corpus. His only claim

is that he was deprived of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and his Sixth Amendment

right to counsel at his arraignment in 2004. The petitioner maintains that, as a result of not having

counsel at a “critical stage” of the proceedings, the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction and the state

court judgment is void. He seeks immediate release from custody.

-2-

2:15-cv-11083-DML-MKM Doc # 3 Filed 04/20/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 30
II.

This is the petitioner’s third habeas corpus petition challenging the same convictions for

first-degree murder and felony firearm. Before a second or successive habeas petition may be filed

in federal district court, a habeas petitioner must move in the appropriate court of appeals for an

order authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 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 previously performed by the

district courts. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664 (1996). A federal district court does not have

jurisdiction to entertain a successive petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the absence of an order

from the court of appeals authorizing the filing of a successive petition. Ferrazza v. Tessmer, 36

F. Supp. 2d 965, 971 (E.D. Mich. 1999). 

When a habeas petitioner files a second or successive petition for habeas corpus relief in the

district court without preauthorization from the court of appeals, the district court must transfer the

document to the court of appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (directing that “[w]henever 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”); In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997)

(holding that “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. § 1631”). 

The petitioner has not acquired permission from the court of appeals to file a second or

-3-

2:15-cv-11083-DML-MKM Doc # 3 Filed 04/20/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 31
successive petition. And he cannot evade the requirements of section 2244(b)(3)(A) by filing his

habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the statute providing a general grant of habeas jurisdiction),

rather than 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the statute limited to individuals in custody under a state-court

judgment). The second-or-successive provisions of “section 2244(b) appl[y] to any habeas corpus

petition seeking relief from custody pursuant to a state court judgment.” Rittenberry v. Morgan, 468

F.3d 331, 336 (6th Cir. 2006). Thus, before filing a successive habeas petition, the petitioner must

seek pre-authorization from the Court of Appeals under section 2244(b). Id. at 338.

III.

The Court will transfer the petition to the court of appeals because the Court lacks

jurisdiction over the petitioner’s successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall TRANSFER the petitioner’s

petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

s/David M. Lawson

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: April 20, 2015

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on April 20, 2015.

s/Susan Pinkowski 

SUSAN PINKOWSKI

-4-

2:15-cv-11083-DML-MKM Doc # 3 Filed 04/20/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 32