Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge CHARLES P. KOCORAS than Assigned Judge
The petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc ) is granted. However, this successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). The case is terminated. The petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc [#4]) is denied as moot. All other pending motions are denied.
O [For further details see text below.]
Docketing to mail notices.
M.L. Moore, a federal prisoner, has filed a pro se
petition for a writ of habeas corpus purportedly pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. The petitioner challenges his convictions for
racketeering, conspiracy, extortion, robbery, unlawful use of a
firearm, and drug trafficking on the grounds that: (1) he is actually
innocent of the underlying charges, (2) counsel was ineffective, (3)
the petitioner was denied the right to confront witnesses against him,
(4) the superseding indictment was based on perjured testimony, and
(5) the petitioner has recently obtained newly-discovered, exculpatory
The petitioner having shown that he is indigent, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. However, the court has reviewed the petition and finds that it must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a habeas petitioner must obtain prior leave from the court of appeals before the district court can consider a second or successive petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). The petitioner in the case at bar has already contested his conviction on appeal, in post-judgment motions, and by way of two prior Section 2255 petitions. See United States of America v. Jackson, et al. , Case No. 96 CR 815-3 (N.D. Ill.); United States v. Moore , Case No. 05 CV 3806 (N.D. Ill.); and United States v. Moore , Case No. 08 CV 0025 (N.D. Ill.). In addition, the petitioner has already been advised the court cannot consider a renewed Section 2255 motion without authorization by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Furthermore, the court has entered a barring order rejecting any further filings in the petitioner's criminal and collateral proceedings. See Minute Order of December 7, 2007, entered in Case No. 05 C 3806; Minute Order of August 21, 2008, entered in Case No. 08 C 0025; and Minute Order of July 1, 2010, entered in Case No. 98 CR 0815.
Undaunted, and notwithstanding the court's admonitions, the petitioner has re-filed suit with a new caption and without showing that the Seventh Circuit has granted him leave to file a renewed habeas corpus petition. The petitioner cannot circumvent the bar on successive Section 2255 petitions simply by recasting his petition as seeking relief under Section 2241. See, e.g., Unthank v. Jett , 549 F.3d 534, 535 (7th Cir. 2008); Taylor v. Gilkey , 314 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2002) (finding that Section 2255(h) would be self-defeating if Section 2255(e) opened the door to a challenge under Section 2241 where Section 2255(h) closed the door to a renewed challenge under Section 2255).
For the foregoing reasons, the court has no jurisdiction to consider the petitioner's renewed application for habeas corpus relief under either Section 2241 or Section 2255. See Nunez v. United States , 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the court grants the petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis but summarily dismisses the habeas corpus petition without prejudice to re-filing suit should the petitioner obtain leave to file from the Seventh Circuit.
Attached to this order is a copy of Circuit Rule 22.2. Circuit Rule 22.2 explains the procedures the petitioner must follow to obtain leave from the Seventh Circuit to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition.
If the petitioner continues to file redundant and frivolous pleadings and motions, the court may impose monetary sanctions and/or refer this matter to the court's Executive Committee for consideration of a ...