UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION
January 3, 2008
KIRK BLINTZER, PETITIONER,
J D ZUERCHER, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joe Billy McDade United States District Judge
Before the Court is Motion to Amend a Judgment brought by Petitioner. [Doc. 18.] For the following reasons, Petitioner's Motion is DENIED.
Petitioner formerly requested habeas relief from this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the commencement date of his sentence. This Court denied Petitioner's request on the basis that his request was a second or subsequent request for habeas relief [Doc. 16] and judgment was accordingly entered against Petitioner. Now, Petitioner has filed a Motion to Amend in which he requests that this Court reverse Judgment against him. Petitioner argues that he may make as many applications as necessary to challenge an administrative decision of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) because his arguments relate to the execution of a sentence.
According to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a)
"No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States if it appears that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus...."
As noted in this Court's previous Order, both the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Seventh Circuit have addressed Petitioner's argument regarding the commencement of his state and federal sentences. As a result, it is clear that the legality of Petitioner's detention has already been determined by a judge or court of the United States. And, Petitioner is simply trying to get around this provision by rephrasing his arguments as a challenge to the commencement date of his federal sentence. Accordingly, this Court will not consider this claim as it is a second or successive claim for habeas relief because the legality of Petitioner's detention has already been determined.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Amend is DENIED
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.