Pena v. Winn, 2:17-cv-12383

Background

Petitioner Nicholas Pena is a Michigan prisoner convicted in Lenawee County in 2013 of two counts of delivery of <50 grams of cocaine, maintaining a drug house, and assaulting a police officer; received concurrent prison terms.
Pena previously filed a federal habeas petition in the Eastern District of Michigan (Case No. 2:14-CV-12855), which Judge Zatkoff stayed and administratively closed so Pena could exhaust state remedies; he was instructed to move to re-open that case after exhaustion.
Instead of re-opening the stayed case, Pena filed a new habeas petition in the Western District of Michigan; that petition was transferred to the Eastern District and assigned to the undersigned judge.
The instant petition challenges the same convictions and incarceration at issue in the previously filed, stayed habeas action.
The Court concluded the new petition is duplicative of (and/or successive to) the pending stayed petition and therefore must be dismissed without prejudice, with instructions to re-file the pleadings in the earlier case.
The Court denied a certificate of appealability and denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, finding the procedural dismissal not debatable among reasonable jurists and any appeal frivolous.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition is duplicative of a pending stayed habeas petition	Pena contends he may file the new petition in a different federal court	Respondent argues the new petition challenges the same convictions and is duplicative of the pending stayed petition	Court dismissed the new petition without prejudice as duplicative and/or successive and directed re-filing in the earlier case
Proper venue / filing procedure after a stayed petition	Pena proceeded to file a separate petition in Western District instead of moving to re-open the stayed Eastern District case	Respondent contends Pena must proceed in the original stayed case as instructed	Court required pleadings to be submitted in the previously-filed, stayed case (to be reassigned to this judge)
Whether the Court should rule on the merits now	Pena seeks habeas relief on merits	Respondent argues procedural dismissal is appropriate given duplication	Court declined to decide merits, dismissed without prejudice and made no merits determination
Certificate of Appealability (COA) eligibility	Pena could challenge procedural dismissal on appeal	Respondent contends dismissal is procedural and not debatable among jurists of reason	Court denied COA, finding jurists of reason would not debate the procedural ruling
Leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal	Pena may request IFP on appeal	Respondent argues appeal would be frivolous after non-prejudicial dismissal	Court denied IFP, concluding any appeal would be frivolous and not in good faith

Key Cases Cited

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability where denial rests on procedural grounds)