Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Utah addresses Brandon M. Samples’s habeas petition challenging his Utah state-court sentences under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court construes the petition as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, concludes that it is an unauthorized second or successive petition, and determines that transfer to the Tenth Circuit is not in the interest of justice. The court orders the petitioner to show cause within thirty days why the petition and a certificate of appealability should not be denied.
Holdings
- A habeas petition challenging the validity of a state-court conviction or sentence is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, even when the petitioner labels the pleading as arising under § 2241.
- A habeas petition attacking the same state-court criminal judgment challenged in a prior unsuccessful federal habeas petition is a second or successive § 2254 application, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider it absent prior authorization from the appropriate court of appeals.
- When an unauthorized successive habeas petition does not satisfy the statutory authorization criteria and there is no apparent risk that a meritorious claim will be lost, transfer to the court of appeals is not in the interest of justice.
- Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability because he has not shown that reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition states a valid constitutional claim or whether the court's procedural ruling is correct.
Questions Presented
- Whether a petition labeled under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 that challenges the validity of a state-court conviction and sentence should be construed as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
- Whether the current petition is a second or successive habeas application subject to the authorization requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
- Whether the district court should transfer the unauthorized successive petition to the Tenth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
- Whether Petitioner should receive a certificate of appealability.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (14)
- State v. Samples, 521 P.3d 526 (Utah Ct. App. 2022)(followed as procedural history)
- Samples v. Utah, No. 4:23-CV-72-AMA (D. Utah Sept. 25, 2023)(followed as procedural history)
- McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Commission, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997)(followed)
- Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 377 (2003)(followed)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-31 (2025)(followed)
- Whitmore v. Parker, 484 F. App'x 227, 232 (10th Cir. 2012)(followed)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)(followed)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)(followed)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)(followed)
- Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 14.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…