Davison v. Indiana Attorney General, No. 4:2017cv00068 - Document 2 (N.D. Ind. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Kevin Jermaine Davison, is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction and the clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 9/11/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)

Download PDF
Davison v. Indiana Attorney General Doc. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE KEVIN JERMAINE DAVISON, Petitioner, vs. INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 4:17-CV-68 OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the Petition under 28 U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Kevin Jermaine Davison on August 7, 2017. For the reasons set forth below, the petition is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction and the clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. DISCUSSION Davison, a petitioner without a lawyer, is attempting to challenge his conviction in the Tippecanoe Superior Court under cause number 79D02-9903-CF-27. However, this is not the first time that he has challenged that conviction. In Davison v. Carter, 2:08CV-151 (N.D. Ind. filed May 12, 2008), he was denied habeas corpus relief because he had already completed his sentence before he filed that case. Though the court did not address the substance of his arguments, a procedural dismissal counts as a prior petition if “the petitioner is incapable of curing the defect underlying Dockets.Justia.com the district court's judgment.” Altman v. Benik, 337 F.3d 764, 766 (7th Cir. 2003). Such is the case here. Davison had completed his sentence before filing his prior habeas corpus challenge. There is nothing that he can do to change that reality. As such, this is a successive petition. However, Davison has not been authorized to file a successive petition as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). “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). Therefore this case must be dismissed because this court lacks jurisdiction to hear it. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the petition is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction and the clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. DATED: September 11, 2017 /s/Rudy Lozano, Judge United States District 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.