Daniels v. Warden

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DAVID LEE DANIELS II, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-1085-R
)
WARDEN, JOSEPH HARP CORRECTIONAL )
CENTER )
)
Respondent. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing
pro se, brings this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, seeking habeas relief from a state court conviction. (ECF No. 1). United
States District Judge David L. Russell has referred this matter to the undersigned
magistrate judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the petition has been
promptly examined, and for the reasons set forth herein, it is recommended that the
action be DISMISSED on filing for lack of jurisdiction.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 4, 2014, an Oklahoma County District Court jury found Mr. Daniels
guilty on several charges and he was sentenced on February 19, 2015.
See ECF No. 1:1.
Mr. Daniels appealed, and on May 6, 2016, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
(OCCA) affirmed the conviction. (ECF No. 1:2). In 2018, Petitioner filed an Application for
Post-Conviction Relief which was eventually denied by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Case 5:25-cv-01085-R Document 7 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 4

Appeals (OCCA).
See Order Affirming Denial of Post-Conviction Relief,
Daniels v. State of
Oklahoma, Case No. PC-2018-862 (Okla. Ct. Crim. App. Feb, 27, 2019). On April 25, 2019,
Mr. Daniels filed a habeas petition in this Court challenging the validity of his underlying
criminal conviction.
See ECF No. 1,
Daniels v. Dowling, Case No. 19-374-R (W.D. Okla.
Apr. 25, 2019). The Court denied the Petition on the merits, Mr. Daniels appealed, and
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for a lack of prosecution.
See
ECF Nos. 33, 34, 38, 42,
Daniels v. Dowling, Case No. 19-374-R (W.D. Okla. Aug. 21,
2020, Nov. 6, 2020, Jan. 12, 2021). Again in 2024, Mr. Daniels filed a habeas petition in
this Court challenging the validity of his underlying criminal conviction.
See ECF No. 1,
Daniels v. Harding, Case No. 24-270-R (W.D. Okla. Mar. 13, 2024). The Court denied the
petition as untimely and entered judgment accordingly.
See ECF Nos. 15 & 16,
Daniels v.
Harding, Case No. 24-270-R (W.D. Okla. Oct. 3, 2024). On September 19, 2025, Mr.
Daniels filed the instant habeas Petition, again challenging the merits of his underlying
criminal state court conviction. (ECF No. 1).
I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND JURISDICTION
The Court is required to review habeas petitions promptly and to dismiss a petition
“[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is
not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Likewise, courts are obligated to examine their jurisdiction
sua sponte and dismiss any
action where subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3);
Arbaugh
Case 5:25-cv-01085-R Document 7 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 4

v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506-07 (2006);
Berryhill v. Evans, 466 F.3d 934, 938 (10th
Cir. 2006).
III. UNAUTHORIZED SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE HABEAS PETITION
“The filing of a second or successive § 2254 application is tightly constrained by
the provisions of AEDPA.”
Case v. Hatch, 731 F.3d 1015, 1026 (10th Cir. 2013). Notably,
“[b]efore a second or successive [§ 2254] application . . . is filed in the district court, the
applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the
district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A);
accord Case, 731
F.3d at 1026. If the petitioner does not heed this statutory directive, the district court has
no jurisdiction to consider his second or successive filing.
See In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249,
1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
As discussed, in 2019 and 2024, Mr. Daniels filed two habeas petitions in this Court
challenging the validity of his underlying state court criminal conviction.
See supra. Thus,
if Petitioner wished to file a subsequent habeas petition challenging the validity of the
same conviction, he would have to seek authorization in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
first.
See supra, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A);
In re Rains, 659 F.3d 1274, 1275 (10th Cir.
2011) (“The dismissal of Mr. Rains’s first habeas petition as time-barred was a decision
on the merits, and any later habeas petition challenging the same conviction is second or
successive and is subject to the AEDPA requirements.”). However, a review of the Tenth
Circuit docket reveals that Mr. Daniels has not sought such authorization prior to filing
Case 5:25-cv-01085-R Document 7 Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 4

the instant case. As a result, this Court has no jurisdiction over the current Petition and
the Court should dismiss the same.
IV. RECOMMENDATION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
Based upon the foregoing analysis, it is recommended that the Court DISMISS
the Petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner is advised of his right to file an objection to this Report and
Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by December 8, 2025, in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Petitioner is further advised that failure to make
timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review
of both factual and legal issues contained herein.
Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120,
1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
V. STATUS OF REFERRAL
This Report and Recommendation terminates the referral by the District Judge in this
matter.
ENTERED on November 21, 2025.
Case 5:25-cv-01085-R Document 7 Filed 11/21/25 Page 4 of 4