1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DANIELLE SCOTT, 

 Petitioner, Case No. 15-cv-11250 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

BONITA HOFFNER, 

 Respondent. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO 

TRANSFER PETITION TO THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 

(ECF #11) AND (2) TRANSFERRING HABEAS PETITION (ECF #1) TO 

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

 In 1993, a state court jury convicted Petitioner Danielle Scott (“Scott”) of 

first-degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. 

Scott now challenges those convictions in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

(See ECF # 1, the “Petition”). 

The Petition is the second federal habeas petition Scott has filed challenging 

his convictions. Scott filed his first habeas petition on August 11, 2000, in the 

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. (See ECF # 11-2 

at 4, Pg. ID 163.) That court dismissed the first petition because Scott failed to 

comply with the one-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). (Id.) 

2:15-cv-11250-MFL-APP Doc # 13 Filed 10/16/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1533
2 

Respondent has filed a Motion to Transfer the Petition to the Sixth Circuit 

Court of Appeals (the “Motion to Transfer”). Respondent argues that the Petition 

is a second or successive petition and that Scott must obtain an order from the 

Sixth Circuit authorizing this Court to consider his Petition. (See ECF #11 at 2, 

Pg. ID 151.) 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), “state prisoners seeking to file a second or 

successive request for a writ of habeas corpus . . . must request from the court of 

appeals an order authorizing the district court to entertain the second or successive 

request.” In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 46 (6th Cir. 1997). A district court lacks 

jurisdiction over a second or successive habeas petition until the appropriate court 

of appeals authorizes the petitioner to file a collateral attack on his or her 

conviction in a district court. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007) 

(“[U]nder AEDPA, [petitioner] was required to receive authorization from the 

Court of Appeals before filing his second challenge. Because he did not do so, the 

District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain it.”). When a prisoner files a 

second or successive habeas petition in a district court, “the district court shall 

transfer the document to [the appropriate court of appeals] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1631.” In re Sims, 111 F.3d at 47. 

2:15-cv-11250-MFL-APP Doc # 13 Filed 10/16/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1534
3 

Scott concedes that the Petition is a “second or successive” habeas petition. 

The Petition’s title reads, in pertinent part, “Successive Motion Based on 

Retroactivity,” and he specifically states that “a defendant may file a second or 

subseguent [sic] motion based on a retroactive change in the law (under the 

exception rule).” (See ECF # 1 at 15, Pg. ID 15 (emphasis added).) Because the 

Petition is a second or successive petition, this Court lacks jurisdiction over it at 

this time. Accordingly, the Court (1) GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Transfer 

(ECF #11), and (2) TRANSFERS the Petition to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 16, 2015 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on October 16, 2015, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:15-cv-11250-MFL-APP Doc # 13 Filed 10/16/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1535