Dugas v. Hooper, 6:23-cv-00826

Petitioner Harry J. Dugas, a Louisiana prisoner, challenges his 2001 conviction for second-degree murder and life sentence.
Dugas filed a prior federal habeas petition in this Court (No. 6:06-cv-1054), which was denied and dismissed with prejudice on August 29, 2007; a certificate of appealability was denied and the Fifth Circuit denied COA on April 17, 2008.
On June 20, 2023, Dugas filed the instant § 2254 petition asserting factual innocence and a Brady claim; he represented he had not previously filed a federal petition (which was incorrect).
The Magistrate Judge reviewed AEDPA’s second-or-successive-petition rules and Fifth Circuit precedent and concluded the 2023 petition attacks the same conviction adjudicated on the merits in the 2006 petition.
Because Dugas did not obtain prior authorization from the Fifth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), the court found it lacked jurisdiction and recommended dismissal without prejudice rather than transfer.
The report advised the parties of the 14-day objection period and addressed the certificate-of-appealability procedure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2023 petition is "second or successive" under AEDPA	Dugas asserts new claims of factual innocence and Brady violations and (mistakenly) represented he had not filed federally before	The petition attacks the same conviction previously adjudicated on the merits and thus is successive under AEDPA and Fifth Circuit precedent	The petition is successive; AEDPA bars consideration absent prior appellate authorization
Whether the district court may proceed or must transfer/dismiss without Fifth Circuit authorization	Dugas implicitly seeks district-court consideration of his claims	The court lacks jurisdiction without Fifth Circuit authorization; transfer to the Fifth Circuit is discretionary, not mandatory	Court dismissed the petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction rather than transfer

Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (establishes when later petition challenges same judgment as earlier petition)
Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (AEDPA’s phrase "second or successive" modifies the entire application)
Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (petition filed after adjudication on the merits is successive)
In re Cain, 137 F.3d 234 (5th Cir. definition of successive petition)
Graham v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 762 (application after prior merits adjudication is successive)
Crone v. Cockrell, 324 F.3d 833 (successive petition framework in the Fifth Circuit)
In re Lampton, 667 F.3d 585 (5th Cir. on later-in-time petitions challenging same sentence)
Hooker v. Sivley, 187 F.3d 680 (district court lacks jurisdiction without circuit authorization)
In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364 (transfer procedure for unauthorized successive petitions)
Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415 (consequences of failing to file timely objections)