The opinion of the court was delivered by: James E. Shadid United States District Judge
E-FILED Thursday, 01 December, 2011 03:40:37 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner, Mondrea Vinning's ("Vinning"), Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus must be DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
Follow a jury trial in 1999, Vinning was sentenced to four concurrent 26-year sentences for two counts of armed robbery and two counts of home invasion in the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois. On appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, one of the home invasion counts was vacated, but his conviction was otherwise affirmed. Vinning's PLA to the Illinois Supreme Court was denied on April 3, 2002. He also unsuccessfully pursued post-conviction relief in the trial court.
On March 24, 2003, Vinning filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. The Petition was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust, and he was given leave to file a petition to reinstate upon completion of his post-conviction proceedings. On September 7, 2004, his Petition was reopened, and an amended petition was filed shortly thereafter. On February 8, 2005, the District Court denied the petition for the same reasons given by the Illinois Appellate Court in addressing the same claim on direct appeal.
On February 23, 2011, Vinning filed the present § 2254 Petition in an attempt to collaterally attack his 1999 conviction in Cook County, Illinois. In this Petition, he claims:
(1) on seven different occasions, the Illinois Prisoner Review Board unconstitutionally failed to provide petitioner with an explanation for good-conduct credit revocations; (2) he will be forced to serve a three-year term of mandatory supervised release after the end of his prison sentence in violation of Illinois law; and (3) he has not received "six months good conduct credits that were guaranteed to him at the time of his sentencing." Respondent has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting a lack of jurisdiction over what amounts to a successive habeas corpus petition. This Order follows.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L.No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (April 24, 1996) (the "Act"), amended the law as it pertains to the filing and processing of habeas corpus petitions, including the treatment of second or successive petitions. The current law concerning second and successive habeas petitions is found in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), which provides:
A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless --
(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or
(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the ...