UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
July 28, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
BRANDON D. BOLLING, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendant Brandon D. Bolling's filing captioned "Jurisdictional Question" (Doc. 52) in which he questions the Court's jurisdiction to impose his criminal sentence. The filing is identical to the first few pages of one of Bolling's earlier filings which the Court construed as a motion (Doc. 48). The Court determined it did not have jurisdiction to grant the earlier motion because Bolling's case was, and still is, on direct appeal at this time. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). The Court further noted that it believed that, although he did not cite it in his motion, Bolling intended to invoke 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because the relief he appears to seek -- vacating his sentence -- is only available through such a motion. The Court declined to construe Bolling's filing as a § 2255 motion, see Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 377 (2003), denied the motion, and directed the Clerk of Court to send Bolling instructions and a form for filing a § 2255 motion. Because Bolling's current filing duplicates his earlier filing, which the Court has already resolved, the Court STRIKES the filing (Doc. 52). The Court further WARNS Bolling that submission of the same document multiple times will not increase his chances of getting a different result and may instead cause the Court to impose restrictions on his ability to file documents in this case.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send a copy of this order to Bolling at:
Brandon D. Bolling Reg. # 08702-025 Yazoo City FCI-Medium P.O. Box 5888 Yazoo City, MS 39194 IT IS SO ORDERED.
J. Phil Gilbert
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.