IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
September 20, 2012
COREY LOUIS HINES, #31660-044, PLAINTIFF,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Corey Hines' notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On December 5, 2011, Hines filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S C. § 2255. Roughly seven weeks later, Hines filed a motion requesting disposition of preliminary review of his § 2255 petition.
On March 15, 2012, before the undersigned Judge had completed the preliminary review or issued an Order herein, Hines filed a Notice of Appeal. The filing of a Notice of Appeal divested the undersigned Judge of jurisdiction and resulted in a delay of more than four months, during which the Court of Appeals considered Hines' appeal, ultimately dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court completed its preliminary review of the § 2255 motion on August 8, 2012, and directed the Government to respond. On September 19, 2012, the same day that the Government filed its response, Hines filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the denial of his § 2255 motion (Doc. 29) and a second Notice of Appeal, appealing the denial of his motion that the undersigned Judge recuse himself (Doc. 30).
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), in § 2255 proceedings, a petitioner cannot appeal unless a circuit judge or a district judge issues a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The Court of Appeals can exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Here, the Court has issued neither a final nor an interlocutory order. Hines' case awaits review and disposition by the district court; therefore, no assessment of his constitutional claims is available for appellate review.
For these reasons, the Court finds that Hines has not stated any grounds for relief under § 2253. He has not made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that a certificate of appealability shall NOT be issued as to either Notice of Appeal (Docs. 29, 30).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL J. REAGAN United States District Judge
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.