Source: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2006/01/05-1384.htm
Timestamp: 2019-01-24 02:05:30
Document Index: 258295221

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2244', '§ 2244', '§ 2244', '§ 2254']

05-1384 -- Girardin v. Yard -- 01/24/2006
| Keyword | Case | Docket | Date: Filed / Added | (14099 bytes) (9036 bytes)
THOMAS EDWARD GIRARDIN,
KEVIN MILYARD, Warden, Sterling Correctional Facility; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
(D.C. No. 05-CV-672-ZLW)
Before TACHA, Chief Judge, MURPHY and O'BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Thomas Edward Girardin appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, in which he argued that his convictions for attempted first degree murder and first degree burglary merge. Thus, the sentences should be served concurrently, and not consecutively as they were imposed.
Mr. Girardin previously filed a § 2254 petition in 1990, in which he challenged these convictions. The district court denied relief on the merits, see Girardin v. Pyle, 752 F.Supp. 979 (D.Colo. 1990), and this court affirmed. See Girardin v. Pyle, No. 91-1014, 1991 WL 104397 (10th Cir. Jun. 12, 1991) (unpublished).
A district court does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive petition until this court has granted the required prior authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). See Lopez v. Douglas, 141 F.3d 974, 975-76 (10th Cir.1998). Accordingly, we will construe the notice of appeal and appellate brief as an implied application under § 2244(b)(3)(A) for leave to file another habeas petition in the district court. Id. at 976.
Mr. Girardin must make a prima facie showing that satisfies § 2244(b)(2)'s criteria for the filing of another habeas petition. That section requires that:
Mr. Girardin does not meet these requirements. He states that he was not aware of the constitutional infirmity until 2002 when he found an unnamed Tenth Circuit case while researching in the law library. This does not constitute a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the United States Supreme Court, nor does it constitute newly discovered evidence.
The district court order is VACATED, and the implied application for authorization to file another § 2254 petition is DENIED. Permission to
appeal in forma pauperis is GRANTED. This matter is DISMISSED.
URL: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2006/01/05-1384.htm.