Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Norman

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


March 15, 2006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TRAVIS NORMAN, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge.

ORDER

On March 14, 2006 Defendant Travis Norman ("Defendant") filed a prose motion asking this Court to reconsider its March 3, 2006 ruling granting the government's motion to dismiss without prejudice due to a pending proceeding in the Eastern District of Missouri (Doc. 268). (Doc. 273.) Specifically, Defendant objects to the fact that this matter was dismissed without, as opposed to with, prejudice. (Id.)

The Court must deny this motion. Defendant, it should be noted, filed a motion to dismiss this case for improper venue that was pending at the time his case was dismissed. (Doc. 254.) In that motion, Defendant suggested that the proper venue for at least some of the charges against him was the Eastern District of Missouri. (Id.) Both the government and the Court agreed, and for this reason the Court dismissed the case against Defendant by granting the government's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 268.) Had the Court opted instead to grant Defendant's motion instead of the government's, however, the net result would have been the same: dismissal without prejudice.*fn1

On top of this, Defendant's motion for reconsideration does not relate to the rationale underlying this Court's March 3rd order. Instead, Defendant attacks the validity of his indictment, supporting this argument by stating that because this Court dismissed Defendant's action, there is "undeniable proof that [Defendant's] indictment was false," and thus Defendant's case should be dismissed with prejudice. The Court does not agree, however, that dismissal must be with prejudice here. As Defendant himself has noted (Doc. 254), there is presently a legitimate question as to whether the Eastern District of Missouri is the appropriate venue for all of the charges brought against Defendant. Since it remains unclear exactly which charges the government will bring in the Eastern District of Missouri, the Court finds that dismissal without prejudice currently is appropriate here.

Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant's pro-se motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 273.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

David R. herndon United States District Judge


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.