United States District Court, N.D. Indiana
May 30, 2014
LAKESHA NORINGTON, Petitioner,
OPINION AND ORDER
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN, District Judge.
Lakesha Norington a/k/a Shawntrell Marcel Norington,  a pro se prisoner, filed an amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2004 conviction for voluntary manslaughter, burglary, and robbery in Marion County. (DE 5.)
Upon review, Norington previously challenged this same conviction in a habeas petition filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District, which was dismissed as untimely in April 2011. Norington v. Superintendent, No. 1:10-CV-477 (S.D. Ind. order dated Apr. 18, 2011.) She cannot proceed with a new habeas petition challenging this same conviction unless she obtains prior authorization from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). There is no indication from her filing that she has obtained such authorization. This court lacks jurisdiction to hear an unauthorized successive petition, and so the petition must be dismissed. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007); Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996).
It bears noting that this is not Norington's first attempt to file an unauthorized successive petition challenging her 2004 conviction. She did so in 2012, and was told by a judge in the Southern District that she must first obtain authorization from the Seventh Circuit. See Norington v. Superintendent, No. 1:12-CV-215 (S.D. Ind. order dated Feb. 22, 2012). She did not heed this instruction, and instead filed the present petition in this District without authorization from the Circuit. Accordingly, Norington is on notice that she cannot file a successive petition challenging her 2004 conviction-or a filing that otherwise attacks the legality of her confinement pursuant to this conviction, however she chooses to caption it-without prior authorization from the Seventh Circuit. She is cautioned that her failure to comply with this procedure in the future may subject her to sanctions, including monetary sanctions and/or filing restrictions.
For these reasons, the petition (DE 5) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.