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.

Blair v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION


April 7, 2010

JOHN E. BLAIR, PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joe Billy McDADE United States Senior District Judge

OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 60(b). (Doc. 25). For the reasons stated below, the Motion is denied.

On January 8, 2010, this Court denied Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; judgment was entered on this Opinion & Order on January 11, 2010.*fn1 (Docs. 13 & 14). The Court found that it had no jurisdiction to consider the § 2255 motion, as it was a "second or successive" § 2255 motion and therefore barred by § 2255(h) without prior approval from the Court of Appeals. In the course of the January 8, 2010 Opinion & Order, the Court granted Petitioner's pending Motion for Leave to Supplement his § 2255 motion. (Doc. 13 at 2 fn. 3). In this Supplement, Petitioner argued against this Court's finding that the § 2255 motion was precluded by § 2255(h).*fn2 (Doc. 9 at 1-2). In addition, he also raised certain claims regarding the merits of his § 2255 motion, arguing that, because of his medical condition, he had "showed this court 'GOOD CAUSE' and with prejudice why he should be GRANTED A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE." (Doc. 9 at 3).

Petitioner has shown no reason under Rule 60(b) or any other provision for relief from the Court's January 11, 2010 judgment dismissing his § 2255 motion. He does not argue that the Court's determination that it had no jurisdiction over the successive motion was erroneous. Instead, he claims that, in granting his Motion to Supplement, the Court gave itself "jurisdiction to entertain this motion and the arguments submitted in the motion for leave to supplement;" he therefore submits new material supporting his claim that his medical condition justifies relief from his sentence. (Doc. 25 at 2).

As noted above, the arguments raised in the Motion to Supplement, claiming that the Court had allowed the successive § 2255 motion and that Petitioner's medical condition justified § 2255 relief, were considered in disposing of the January 8, 2010 Opinion & Order. The Court explicitly rejected the claim that it had jurisdiction over the successive § 2255 motion. (Doc. 13 at 6). Petitioner's arguments in the Motion to Supplement concerning his medical condition were thus irrelevant, as the Court did not have jurisdiction. "No matter how powerful a petitioner's showing, only [the Court of Appeals] may authorize the commencement of a second or successive petition." Nunez v. U.S., 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). Petitioner's arguments in the Motion to Supplement and the instant Motion for Reconsideration do not change this fact. The Court had no jurisdiction over the § 2255 motion at the time it was rejected, and it still does not. If Petitioner wishes to raise a § 2255 claim, he must obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals. No further relief is available in this Court in this case.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 60(b) (Doc. 25) is DENIED.

Entered this 7th day of April, 2010.


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.