United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER OF TRANSFER
R. UNDERHILL United States District Judge.
Stanley challenges his 1990 state conviction for murder in
this habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254. He asserts one claim, ineffective assistance of all
prior habeas counsel. For the reasons that follow, the case
is transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the
1990, Stanley was convicted of murder and sentenced to a term
of imprisonment of sixty years. His conviction was affirmed
on direct appeal. State v. Stanley, 223 Conn. 674
(1992). In 1994, Stanley filed a federal habeas petition.
Stanley v. Meachum, No. 3:94-cv-866 (PCD). On July
8, 1996, the court approved and adopted the magistrate
judge's recommended ruling denying the petition.
1994, Stanley filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in
state court on the ground that he was afforded ineffective
assistance of trial counsel. The state court denied the
petition, Stanley v. Commissioner of Correction,
1999 WL 1207156 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 1999), and the
state appellate courts affirmed the denial. Stanley v.
Commissioner of Correction, 67 Conn.App. 357 (2001),
cert. denied, 259 Conn. 922 (2002). Stanley's
petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court
also was denied. Stanley v. Armstrong, 527 U.S. 838
February 26, 2003, Stanley filed a second federal habeas
action. The court transferred the case to the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2004, Stanley filed a second state habeas action on the
ground that trial counsel was ineffective. The state court
dismissed the petition because count two of the petition
presented a claim that was included in a prior habeas
petition and previously denied. In the alternative, the state
court denied the petition on the ground of procedural
default. Stanley v. Warden, State Prison, 2007 WL
4216254 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 5, 2007).
2008, Stanley filed a third state habeas action on the ground
that appellate counsel and habeas counsel were ineffective.
Stanley v. Warden, State Prison, No.
TSR-CV08-4002493-S. The state court docket indicates that the
petition was denied by the state court and Stanley withdrew
his appeal. See
(last visited Oct. 26, 2016).
2012, Stanley filed a fourth state habeas petition
challenging the effectiveness of all prior habeas counsel.
The state court denied the petition after a trial on the
merits. Stanley v. Warden, State Prison, 2014 WL
7793408 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 23, 2014). The judgment was
affirmed on appeal. Stanley v. Commissioner of
Correction, 164 Conn.App. 244, cert. denied,
321 Conn. 913 (2016).
October 24, 2016, Stanley commenced this action challenging
his conviction on the ground of ineffective assistance of all
prior habeas counsel.
28, section 2244 provides, in relevant part, that a
petitioner must seek permission from the Court of Appeals
before filing a second or successive habeas petition in
district court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Such
requirement applies even when, as here, the first federal
habeas petition was filed before the statute was amended.
Mancuso v. Herbert, 166 F.3d 97, 101 (2d Cir. 1999).
Section 2244 also provides that a claim presented in a second
or successive petition that was not included in a prior
petition must be dismissed unless certain conditions are met.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). The amendments to section 2244
have transferred to the courts of appeal the screening
function formerly performed by the district courts.
Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664 (1996). The
authorization requirement in section 2244 is jurisdictional.
Torres v. Senkowski, 316 F.3d 147, 149 (2d Cir.
already has had a federal habeas petition decided on the
merits. Thus, a third federal petition cannot be filed unless
Stanley obtains permission from the Second Circuit. He does
not provide any evidence that he filed a motion with the
Second Circuit to obtain authorization for me to consider
this petition. In such circumstances, the Second Circuit
requires the district court to “transfer the petition
… to this Court in the interest of justice pursuant to
[28 U.S.C.] § 1631.” Liriano v. United
States, 95 F.3d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1996) (setting forth
procedures to be followed when the district court receives a
second or successive petition).