Court Opinion

ID: 2964481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:26:20.552504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:03.014637
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

          Misc. No. 96-8057

                                 NORMAN E. DICKINSON,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                                   STATE OF MAINE,

                                     Respondent.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                   [Hon. Eugene W. Beaulieu, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
                                             _____________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

               Norman E.  Dickinson on motion to file  second or successive
               ____________________
          petition under 28 U.S.C.   2254 pro se.

                                 ____________________

                                  December 12, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Petitioner has filed  a motion to file
                      __________

            a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C.   2244(b).  

                      Petitioner's first   2254 petition, filed in  1992,

            was  dismissed  for   failure  to  exhaust   state  remedies.

            Petitioner has  since pursued various state  remedies and now

            asserts  that he  has exhausted  state remedies.1     For the
                                                            1

            reasons stated in Camarano v. Irvin, 98 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. Oct.
                              ________    _____

            22,  1996),   we  conclude  that  in     these  circumstances

            petitioner's  present    2254  petition is  not  a second  or

            successive  petition  within  the  meaning  of  28  U.S.C.   

            2244(b).  Consequently, petitioner  is not required to obtain

            permission  from  this  court  to file  his  present     2254

            petition in the district court.  

                      We note that the district court struck petitioner's

            present    2254  petition under  the mistaken impression that

            petitioner  had to obtain permission  to file from this court

            before the district court could  entertain the petition.   As

            we  have  now  determined  that permission  is  not  required

            because  the earlier  petition was  dismissed for  failure to

            exhaust  state remedies, petitioner may now refile his   2254

            petition in the district court.

                                
            ____________________

               1We do not  now decide  whether he has  in fact  exhausted
               1
            state remedies, see Hatch v. State of Oklahoma, 92 F.3d 1012,
                            ___ _____    _________________
            1016 (10th Cir. 1996), or whether the claims petitioner seeks
            to present are meritorious.

                                         -2-