United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
December 16, 2005.
MICHAEL NIETUPSKI, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: RICHARD MILLS, Senior District Judge
The Court now considers Petitioner Michael Nietupski's second
petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
FACTS & ANALYSIS
On December 16, 2005, the Court received a letter from Michael
Nietupski. Mr. Nietupski asked the Court to consider his letter a
motion for relief pursuant to United States v. Booker,
___ U.S. ___ 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He also asked the
Court to appoint him counsel because he is not "smart enough" to
file one pro se. Although Mr. Nietupski claims he is not intelligent enough to
file a pro se motion, the docket sheet for this case shows that
he previously filed an unsuccessful pro se petition on May 2,
1997. This shows that Mr. Nietupski is capable enough to file a
pro se motion. More importantly, however, Mr. Nietupski cannot
file the instant motion on account of his earlier filing. Section
2255 bars individuals from filing second or successive habeas
petitions unless the motion is certified in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals. The
instant motion is essentially a habeas petition, and the Clerk of
the Court will docket it as a Second Petition for Habeas Corpus.
Because Mr. Nietupski's second petition has not been
appropriately certified, the Court cannot consider it. See
28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Ergo, Petitioner's Second Petition for Habeas Corpus (d/e 26)
is DENIED due to lack of appropriate certification.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.