Wilcock v. Frink et al, No. 9:2011cv00152 - Document 9 (D. Mont. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 in full. Wilcock's petition 1 is DISMISSED. The Court certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 1/4/2012. Mailed to Wilcock. (TAG, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wilcock v. Frink et al Doc. 9 FILED JAN 0 ~ 2012 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PATRICK E, DUFFY. CLERK FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA By '=-:-:- DEPUTY CLERK, MISSOULA MISSOULA DMSION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ERNEST BRENT WILCOCK, Petitioner, vs. MARTINL. FRINK, Warden; STATE OF MONTANA, Respondents. CV 11-152-M-DWM-JCL ORDER -----------------------) Petitioner Ernest Wilcock filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with this court on November 17, 2011. (Dkt # 1.) On November 21, United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered Findings and Recommendations. (Okt # 5.) He recommended dismissing Wilcock's petition for lack ofjurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). Wilcock timely filed objections (dkt # 8) and is therefore entitled to de novo review ofthe record. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). The instant petition is Wilcock's second in this court with respect to his 1998 conviction for sexual intercourse without consent. His previous petition was denied on the merits on August] 6, 2006. Because Wilcock is challenging the -1· Dockets.Justia.com same conviction previously addressed, this Court lacks jurisdiction to even consider his petition without an order authorizing it to do so from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(bX3XA); Burton y. Stewart. 549 U.S. 147 (2007). Wilcock raises no arguments that address this clear and total bar to jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court finds no basis for jurisdiction and adopts Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendations in full. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation (dkt # 5) are adopted in full. 2. Wilcock's petition (dkt # 1) is DISMISSED for lack of federal jurisdiction. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter ajudgment of dismissal. 5. The Clerk of Court is further directed to have the docket reflect that the Court certifies pursuant to Rule 24(aX3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. DATED this KL-day ofJanuary, 2012. . Mol oy, District Judge tates D trict Court -2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
