Free Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv—00493-GIVIS Document 5 Filed 1 1/26/2007 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RAYMOND O. DEMBY, JR., )
)
Petitioner, ) __ 5
) 6-7 '/ ‘7
v. ) Civil Action No. 06-650-GMS
)
THOMAS CARROLL, )
Warden, and ATTORNEY GENERAL )
OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
Respondents. )
O R D E R
4 LN
At Wilmington this E day of H20/’ , 2007;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner Raymond O. Demby’s motion to proceed informa pauperis is GRANTED
for the limited purpose of issuing the instant order. (D.I. 1.)
2. Petitioner Raymond O. Demby’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED and the writ is DENIED as second or successive. (D.I. 2.) The
instant petition is Demby’s second habeas challenge to his 1996 conviction. The court denied
Demby’s first § 2254 petition challenging his 1996 conviction as time-barred} See Love v.
Williams, 2002 WL 1058184 (D. Del. May 22, 2002). The record reveals that Demby filed the
instant petition without first obtaining permission from the Court of Appeals for the Third
'The instant petition was filed, and signed, by an individual named "Raym0nd O.
Demby," and the petition denied in 2002 was filed and signed by an individual named "Raheem
Love." However, the prisoner SBI number in both petitions is the same.

Case 1:07-cv—00493-G|\/IS Document 5 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 2 of 2
Circuit. Therefore, the court does not have the authority to review the petition. See 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(1); Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 139 (3d Cir. 2002)(holding that when a second
or successive habeas petition is erroneously filed "in a district court without the permission of the
court of appeals, the district court’s only option is to dismiss the petition or transfer it to the court
of appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.").
3. Demby has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right," 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and a certificate of appealability is not warranted. See United
States v. Eyer, 113 F.3d 470 (3d Cir. 1997); 3rd Cir. LAR 22.2 (2002).
4. Pursuant to Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, the clerk shall forthwith serve a copy of the
petition and this order upon: (1) the above-named warden of the facility in which Denston is
housed; and (2) the Attorney General for the State of Delaware.
5. The clerk shall also send a copy of this order to Denston at his address on record.
CH&F, UNITED STATES DlSTEiC ilUDGE
F I L E D
E`} Wy )· .`.,,
us.
¤tmf2§¥2‘é%TEE£»€Z§E
2