Hayden v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution, 3:21-cv-00130

Petitioner Robert O. Hayden filed an application under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) seeking leave to file a second or successive habeas petition; the Clerk initially docketed it as a habeas petition but Hayden styled it as a § 2244 application.
The Magistrate Judge concluded the district court lacks jurisdiction to grant such leave and must transfer the application to the Sixth Circuit because § 2244(b) is jurisdictional.
The opinion summarizes Hayden’s prior federal habeas history: multiple prior petitions stemming from a 1990 rape conviction and related parole revocation issues (notably filings in 2001, 2002, 2016, and earlier petitions in 1994–1995).
In 2002 (Case No. 3:02-cv-530) Hayden challenged the 1990 conviction; the district court dismissed that petition and the dismissal was adopted in August 2004. Hayden did not appeal that dismissal.
In 2016 (Case No. 3:16-cv-286) he challenged continued detention after the 1990 sentence expired; the petition was dismissed as presenting state-law questions and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
The Magistrate Judge ordered the Clerk to transfer the § 2244(b) application to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for its consideration (Order dated April 27, 2021).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court has jurisdiction to grant leave to file a second or successive § 2254 petition	Hayden styled the filing as a motion under § 2244 and not a new petition, implying the district court could act	§ 2244(b) is jurisdictional; only the court of appeals may authorize a second or successive habeas petition	The district court lacks jurisdiction and must transfer the application to the Sixth Circuit
Whether the district court would decide in the first instance if the filing were treated as a new habeas petition	Hayden’s labeling seeks district-court consideration rather than a certification request to the court of appeals	If it were an actual petition, some Sixth Circuit precedent contemplates district-court threshold review, but § 2244(b)’s jurisdictional effect requires transfer	Court observed that if it were a petition the district court might determine successive status, but given jurisdictional rule it transferred the matter to the Sixth Circuit

Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) (describing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) as jurisdictional)
Post v. Bradshaw, 422 F.3d 419 (6th Cir. 2005) (treating § 2244(b) as jurisdictional in the Sixth Circuit)
In re: Kenneth Smith, 690 F.3d 809 (6th Cir. 2012) (discussing when a district court may consider whether a petition is second or successive)