Maxie v. Superintendent, No. 3:2015cv00380 - Document 3 (N.D. Ind. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Michael Maxie is CAUTIONED that if he files another unauthorized successive petition, he will be fined and sanctioned. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 9/2/2015. (cc: Maxie)(rmc)

Download PDF
Maxie v. Superintendent Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION MICHAEL MAXIE, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:15 CV 380 OPINION AND ORDER Michael Maxie, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition attempting to challenge his convictions and sentence by the Elkhart Superior Court under cause number 20D01-0812-FC-102. In Maxie v. Superintendent, 3:14-CV-1444 (N.D. Ind. filed April 24, 2014), Maxie challenged those same convictions. The court denied habeas corpus relief in that case and entered judgment on April 17, 2014. Id., DE # 33 and 34. Maxie appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on August 7, 2015. Maxie v. Neal, 15-2159 (7th Cir. filed April 29, 2015). Here, Maxie is merely attempting to raise the same claims he previously presented and has even attached copies of pages from his prior petition. “A district court must dismiss a second or successive petition, without awaiting any response from the government, unless the court of appeals has given approval for its filing.” Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996) (emphasis in original). Here, because the Dockets.Justia.com Seventh Circuit has not authorized this successive petition, this court lacks jurisdiction and it must be dismissed. For these reasons, the petition (DE # 1) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Michael Maxie is CAUTIONED that if he files another unauthorized successive petition, he will be fined and sanctioned. SO ORDERED. Date: September 2, 2015 s/James T. Moody JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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.