Bridges v. Director of Corrections

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
John Clark Bridges, )
)
Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
) AND RECOMMENDATION
vs. )
) Case No. 1:23-cv-035
Director of Corrections, )
)
Respondent. )
______________________________________________________________________________
The Petitioner, John Clark Bridges, initiated this pro se action on March 15, 2023. See
Doc. No. 3. The Petitioner filed a Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc.
No. 3) and a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) on March 15, 2023.
Magistrate Judge Clare R. Hochhalter issued a Report and Recommendation on March 17, 2023,
in which he recommended the Court deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the
Section 2254 petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. See Doc. No. 7. The Petitioner
was given until April 7, 2023, to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation. On April 4,
2023, the Petitioner filed an objection. See Doc. No. 8.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the relevant case law,
the Plaintiff’s objection, and the entire record, and finds the Report and Recommendation to be
persuasive. The Court finds the Plaintiff’s objection unpersuasive. The Court agrees with
Magistrate Judge Hochhalter’s determination that the Court lacks jurisdiction. The Petitioner’s
current Section 2254 petition is his second or successive petition because his prior petition was
dismissed as untimely. Therefore, the Petitioner must obtain circuit court permission before the
Court can entertain a petition. Consequently, the current Section 2254 petition must be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction.
Case 1:23-cv-00035-DLH-CRH Document 9 Filed 04/12/23 Page 1 of 2

The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 7) in its entirety and
ORDERS as follows:
1) The Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is
DENIED.
2) The Petitioner’s Section 2254 petition (Doc. No. 3) is DISMISSED without
prejudice on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
3) The Court finds that any appeal would be frivolous, could not be taken in good
faith, and may not be taken in forma pauperis.
4) Based upon the entire record before the Court, dismissal of the motion is not
debatable, reasonably subject to a different outcome on appeal, or otherwise
deserving of further proceedings. Therefore, a certificate of appealability will not
be issued by this Court. See Tiedemann v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 252 (8th Cir.
1997) (finding that a district court possesses the authority to issue certificates of
appealability under Section 2253(c)). If the petitioner desires further review of his
petition, he may request the issuance of a certificate of appealability by a circuit
judge of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in accordance with Tiedemna v.
Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 250-252 (8th Cir. 1997).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 12th day of April, 2023.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:23-cv-00035-DLH-CRH Document 9 Filed 04/12/23 Page 2 of 2