Doyle v. State of Montana, No. 2:2012cv00039 - Document 8 (D. Mont. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full. The Petition 1 is DISMISSED. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 10/16/2012. Mailed to Doyle. (TAG, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Doyle v. State of Montana Doyle v. State of Montana Doc. 8 Doc. 8 FILED OCT 1 2012 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BUTfE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) KEITH DOYLE, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF MONTANA, Respondent. CV 12-39-BU-DLC ORDER -----------------------) United States Magistrate Judge Carolyn S. Ostby entered her Findings and Recommendation in this matter on June 20, 2012, recommending the dismissal of Doyle's June 14,2012 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and denial of any certificate of appealability. Doyle filed a "Motion for Leave to File a[nl Amended Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus," which will be construed as objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). Essentially, he objects to Judge Ostby's detennination that amendment would be futile. Doyle is entitled to de novo review of this finding. 1- Dockets.Justia.com 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). There is no amendment that would pennit this Court to consider Doyle's claims. A district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive challenge to a conviction unless the Court ofAppeals authorizes it to do so. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The Court of Appeals has not authorized the Court to consider a second petition here. Thus, the Court has no jurisdiction over Doyle's claims. Moreover, Doyle states in his objections that the current petition raises "the same exact issues untouched...which this court originally dismissed." (Doc. 6 at 2.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(l), "a claim presented in a second...habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed." To the extent that Doyle seeks to reopen proceedings on the first petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), he has asserted no "extraordinary circumstances" that would justifY reopening ofthe final judgment in this matter, which was affmned by the Court of Appeals. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524,534-35 (2005). There being no clear error in the remainder of Judge Ostby's analysis, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: I. Judge Ostby's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 3) are ADOPTED in full. -2- 2. The Petition (doc. 1) is DISMISSED. 3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. 4. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal. DATED this I of October 2 12. I Dana L. Christensen, Dis .ct Judge United States District Court -3-
]]>
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.
