Ervin v. Morrison

United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division · January 16, 2025 · No. 2:24-cv-13464

Summary

This order by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan addresses a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by inmate Freddie L. Ervin challenging his state convictions for murder and firearm offenses. The court determines that the petition constitutes a second or successive filing under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) because the underlying factual predicates existed during Ervin's initial habeas proceeding. Consequently, the court orders the clerk to transfer the case to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals so the petitioner may seek authorization to proceed.

Court
United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
Writing for the Court
Robert J. White
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Decision date
January 16, 2025
Docket number
2:24-cv-13464
Procedural posture
Transfer of successive habeas petition to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Freddie L. Ervin v. Bryan Morrison
Disposition
other

Topics

successive petitionshabeas corpuspost-conviction reliefappellate procedurecriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedurepost-conviction reliefappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Ervin's petition constitutes a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)

Holdings

  1. The petition is a successive habeas petition and must be transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for authorization to proceed.

Key quotations

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transfer this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, for authorization to file a successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

Factual background

Freddie L. Ervin is incarcerated for first‑degree murder and related firearm offenses. He alleges new evidence that prosecutors offered a plea bargain to a key witness and failed to disclose it, constituting Brady and Giglio violations, and claims ineffective assistance of counsel.

Procedural history

Ervin previously filed an unsuccessful habeas petition; he now filed a second petition raising new evidence. The district court determined the petition is successive and must be transferred to the appellate court.

Remand instructions

Transfer the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for authorization to file a successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(A).

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…