Source: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2000/11/00-6149.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 15:54:26+00:00

Document:
Appellant Isa Abd'allah Ramadan Shabazz (Mr. Shabazz), a state prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the district court's decision denying his habeas petition as a second and successive petition. We affirm.
On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals considered Mr. Shabazz's 1000-year sentence a life sentence. Id. at 1393. In addition to this conviction and sentence, Mr. Shabazz was also incarcerated for various other Oklahoma state court convictions, including robbery, forgery in the second degree, and receiving a taken credit card. As of 1989, Mr. Shabazz had filed at least twenty-two habeas actions, including at least seven relating to his 1970 conviction. Since then, and excluding the petition now on appeal, Mr. Shabazz has filed at least one state habeas petition and four federal habeas petitions, seeking habeas relief.
On December 16, 1999, we denied Mr. Shabazz's motion concluding he failed to make the prima facie showing required under § 2244(b)(2)(A) or (B).
In Mr. Shabazz's latest federal habeas petition, which is the subject of this appeal, he makes the same assertions contained in his November 9, 1999 motion. The State of Oklahoma filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Shabazz's petition as a second or successive petition. The district court referred the petition to a magistrate judge who recommended granting the state's motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge made this recommendation based on the fact this court previously denied Mr. Shabazz permission to file a second or successive petition on the same issues. Following the magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court granted the state's motion to dismiss the petition with prejudice.
As a matter of clarification, we note the district court and this court have construed Mr. Shabazz's past habeas pleadings challenging the state's denial of parole as pleadings filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, we have held that habeas pleadings which contest parole denials involve challenges to the execution of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, rather than the validity of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See George v. Perrill, 62 F.3d 333, 334 (10th Cir. 1995); cf. Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 865 (10th Cir. 2000). It is important to note our clarification of this matter does not change the outcome of our prior decisions nor our decision in this case. We make this determination even though we recognize our review of a second or successive § 2241 petition is controlled by different criteria than for a second or successive § 2254 petition.
must make a prima facie showing that the grounds set forth are based on either  a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive on collateral review by the United States Supreme Court that was previously unavailable or  newly discovered evidence, the factual basis for which could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence, and which would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact finder would have found the movant guilty of the underlying offense.
Tapia v. Lemaster, 172 F.3d 1193, 1196 (10th Cir.) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 192 (1999).
Applying either criterium, it is clear Mr. Shabazz's identical parole claims must fail as successive, regardless of whether we construe his past and present pleadings as § 2241 or § 2254 filings. First, if we construe these pleadings under § 2241, we conclude Mr. Shabazz's parole claims have already been rejected as successive by this court so that his instant petition is also successive under the criteria for either § 2244(a) or § 2244(b). Second, if we construe his past pleadings and instant petition as filed under § 2254, Mr. Shabazz has again not demonstrated either reliance on a new rule of constitutional law or on facts that were previously undiscoverable and sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence he would not have been found guilty of the offense, as required under § 2244(b)(2)(A), (B). For these reasons, we agree with the district court that Mr. Shabazz's petition constitutes a second or successive petition.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's order denying Mr. Shabazz's habeas petition as successive, deny his request for a certificate of appealability, and deny Mr. Shabazz's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
1. Two points of clarification are necessary. First, Mr. Shabazz was Herbert Fields co-defendant in the Fields decision. See 501 P.2d at 1390. Second, at the time of his conviction, Mr. Shabazz's legal name was Jimmy Louis Phillips. See Shabazz v. Keating, 977 P.2d 1089, 1089 (Okla. 1999), petition for cert. filed, (No. 98­9765) 58 U.S.L.W. 3222 (Jun. 7, 1999).
2. Mr. Shabazz has filed numerous § 1983 actions against various prison officials, including several which we have considered on appeal. As a result of his numerous filings, Mr. Shabazz is recognized as a frequent filer and is under strict filing restrictions before he may submit § 1983 and other pleadings in this circuit and the federal district courts.
4. See Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1287 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1103 (1997); see also Vargas v. Sikes, 42 F. Supp.2d 1380, 1381 (N.D. Ga. 1999); Byrd v. Gillis, 1997 WL 698157 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 1997) (unpublished opinion).
5. See, e.g., In re Slatton, 165 F.3d 28, 1998 WL 661148, *2-4 (6th Cir. 1998) (unpublished opinion) (declining to apply § 2244(b) to state prisoner's successive § 2241 petition).
6. Given Mr. Shabazz's propensity to file repetitive and frivolous habeas pleadings and our interests in judicial economy, we warn Mr. Shabazz this Court will summarily dismiss any future second or successive habeas applications or appeals.

References: § 2244
 § 2254
 § 2241
 § 2254
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2241
 § 2254
 v. 
 § 2244
 § 2241
 § 2254
 § 2241
 § 2244
 § 2244
 § 2254
 § 2244
 v. 
 § 1983
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2244
 § 2241