United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Herndon United State District Judge
2007, a jury in Massac County, Illinois, convicted petitioner
Michael Ray Reeves of three counts of aggravated criminal
sexual assault and one count of aggravated kidnapping. He was
sentenced to a total of fifty-two years imprisonment. See,
People v. Reeves, Rule 23 Order on Second Direct
Appeal, Doc. 8, Ex. 1, p. 27.
filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §2254. (Doc. 8). He alleges five grounds
related to ineffective assistance of counsel and the denial
of a fair trial.
matter is now before the Court on respondent's Motion to
Dismiss Habeas Corpus Petition. (Doc. 11). Respondent argues
that the petition must be dismissed because it is a
successive petition and Reeves has not obtained permission
for leave to file under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3).
Petitioner responded to the motion at Doc. 16.
Facts and Procedural History
filed two direct appeals and several state court
postconviction proceedings. In the posture of this case, it
is not necessary to delineate the claims raised in his state
court proceedings. It suffices to note that petitioner's
direct appeal and all postconviction proceedings were
unsuccessful and that he remains in custody pursuant to the
filed his first §2254 petition challenging his Massac
County convictions in this district in 2010. This Court
dismissed the petition without prejudice because state
remedies had not been exhausted. Reeves v. Rednour,
Case No. 10-cv-869-DRH-DGW, Doc. 26.
filed his second §2254 petition challenging his Massac
County convictions in this district in 2012. That petition
set forth twelve grounds for relief, including ineffective
assistance of counsel and denial of a fair trial. At the time
he filed that habeas petition, his appeal from the dismissal
of his postconviction petition was pending. Reeves admitted
in the petition that he was still pursuing state remedies as
to at least eleven of his grounds. Reeves v.
Atchison, Case No. 12-cv-630-DRH, Doc. 1. On preliminary
review, this Court determined that the petition was
“mixed” and dismissed all but one of the grounds
without prejudice because state remedies had not been
exhausted. The petition was allowed to proceed on one ground,
denial of petitioner's right to a speedy trial. Case No.
12-cv-630-DRH, Doc. 4. The speedy trial claim was denied on
the merits in January 2014. Case No. 12-cv-630-DRH, Doc. 20.
Reeves appealed. The Seventh Circuit denied a certificate of
appealability in May 2014. Case No. 12-cv-630-DRH, Doc. 38.
person convicted in state court is generally limited to
filing only one petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal
court. 28 U.S.C. §2244(a).
U.S.C. §2244(b)(1) provides that “A claim
presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application
under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application
shall be dismissed.” However, a second or successive
petition may be filed asserting certain types of claims that
have not been previously presented:
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
(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have
been discovered previously through the exercise of ...