Automated Summary
Key Facts
Mohammed Atta filed a second habeas corpus petition challenging his 2009 conviction in New York Supreme Court, Kings County. This is his second attempt to challenge the same conviction after a previous petition was denied in 2018. The court lacks jurisdiction under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which allocates jurisdiction for successive habeas motions to the Court of Appeals rather than district courts. The petition is being transferred to the Second Circuit.
Issues
The main legal issue is whether the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has jurisdiction to hear Mohammed Atta's second petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2009 conviction in New York Supreme Court, Kings County. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, jurisdiction to authorize successive habeas motions belongs to courts of appeals, not district courts. Since this is Atta's second attempt to challenge the same conviction, the district court lacks jurisdiction to address the petition on the merits and must transfer it to the Second Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Holdings
The Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this successive habeas corpus petition as the petitioner has previously challenged the same conviction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, the petition is transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for authorization to pursue this successive petition. The Court grants IFP status for this action but certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying IFP for appellate purposes.
Remedies
The Court transfers Mohammed Atta's habeas petition to the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 due to lack of jurisdiction over successive petitions, closes the case, and grants in forma pauperis status for this action while denying it for any appeal based on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Legal Principles
The court lacks jurisdiction to consider this successive habeas corpus petition and transfers it to the Second Circuit. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 allocates jurisdiction to courts of appeals, not district courts, to authorize successive habeas motions or applications. Since this is Atta's second attempt to challenge the same conviction, the Court is required to transfer the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Precedent Name
- Torres v. Senkowski
- Liriano v. United States
- Coppedge v. United States
Cited Statute
- Successive Habeas Authorization
- IFP Certification
- Habeas Corpus
- Transfer of Jurisdiction
Judge Name
Pamela K. Chen
Passage Text
- Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the Court transfers this Petition to the Second Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and closes this case.
- The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 'allocates jurisdiction to the courts of appeals, not the district courts, to authorize successive habeas motions or applications.' Torres v. Senkowski, 316 F.3d 147, 151 (2d Cir. 2003). Because this is Atta's second attempt to challenge the same conviction, this Court lacks jurisdiction to address it on the merits and is required to transfer this petition to the Second Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.