Gakuba v. John/Jane Doe

Background

Peter Gakuba, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Winnebago County, Illinois, conviction. He had been convicted by a jury of three counts of aggravated sexual abuse and sentenced to a total of 12 years in prison. The opinion states that he had been released to parole supervision and resided in Staten Island, New York.

Gakuba had previously filed a § 2254 petition challenging the same conviction in the Northern District of Illinois. That petition included both exhausted claims—claims already presented to the state courts—and unexhausted claims. The Illinois federal court dismissed the unexhausted claims without prejudice and allowed the exhausted claims to proceed. It later denied relief on those claims after considering their merits. The Seventh Circuit denied Gakuba’s request for a certificate of appealability, and the Supreme Court denied review.

Arguments and Legal Standard

Gakuba argued that the Illinois court should have stayed his first petition while he pursued his unexhausted claims. He also argued that, because of how the first petition was handled, his current petition should not be treated as a second or later petition. The court noted that it was unclear whether Gakuba had been given a choice about proceeding only on the exhausted claims, but it found that the earlier merits decision had not been overturned.

Under the federal habeas statutes, a person seeking to file a second or later petition challenging the same state-court conviction must first obtain authorization from the appropriate federal appeals court. Without that authorization, the district court lacks authority to consider the petition. The court concluded that Gakuba’s current petition was successive because his earlier petition had been resolved on the merits as to the exhausted claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed the successive § 2254 petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because Gakuba had not obtained authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The court declined to transfer the petition to an appeals court, noting that Gakuba had been advised about the authorization requirement, had previously withdrawn a request for authorization after a transfer, and asked this court not to transfer the petition.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The clerk was directed to mail Gakuba a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The court cautioned that the order closed the case.