Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U.S. Ex Rel. Jon M. Cox (#R-23562 v. Warden March Hodge

July 30, 2012

U.S. EX REL. JON M. COX (#R-23562)
v.
WARDEN MARCH HODGE



Name of Assigned Judge MATTHEW F. KENNELLY Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge

CASE TITLE

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Petitioner's motion for leave to file in forma pauperis [#3] 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)(A). The case is terminated. A copy of Circuit Rule 22.2 (7th Cir.) is attached to this order.

O [For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Jon Cox, an Illinois state prisoner, has filed a successive pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his convictions for attempted murder, armed kidnaping, and attempted armed robbery on the grounds that: (1) the imposition of a three-year term of mandatory supervised release violates principles of due process and double jeopardy; (2) his defense attorney was ineffective; (3) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct; (4) the guilty plea was coerced; and (5) both the Illinois statute defining criminal attempts and the Supreme Court rule governing motions to withdraw guilty pleas are unconstitutional.

Petitioner having stated 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.

A current litigation-bar order in place by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit does not preclude Petition from filing habeas corpus actions. Nevertheless, 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). Petitioner in the case at bar filed an earlier habeas corpus petition, Cox v. Randolph , Case No. 07 C 6731 (N.D. Ill.). This Court denied that petition on its merits by Minute Order of July 7, 2008 (Kennelly, J.), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed Petitioner's multiple appeals. Petitioner makes no showing that the Court of Appeals has granted him leave to file a second habeas corpus petition. The Court therefore has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed application for habeas corpus relief under § 2254. See Nunez v. United States , 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996); In re Page , 170 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 1999).

Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioner's motion for leave to file in forma pauperis but summarily dismisses the habeas corpus petition without prejudice to re-filing suit should Petitioner obtain leave to file from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Attached to this order is a copy of Circuit Rule 22.2 (7th Cir.). Circuit Rule 22.2 explains the procedures Petitioner must follow to obtain leave from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition.

Circuit Rule 22.2. Successive Petitions for Collateral Review

(a) A request under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b) or the final paragraph of 28 U.S.C. §2255 for leave to file a second or successive petition must include the following information and attachments, in this order:

(1) A disclosure statement, if required by Circuit Rule 26.1.

(2) A short narrative statement of all claims the person wishes to present for decision. This statement must disclose whether any of these claims has been presented previously to any state or federal court and, if it was, how each court to which it was presented resolved it. If the claim has not previously been presented to a federal court, the applicant must state either:

(A) That the claim depends on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.