Jackson v. Hobbs

Filing 43

ORDER denying 42 motion for reconsideration. Nothing in Jackson's new paper changes the conclusion that his Rule 60 motion is a second or successive habeas petition. Before Jackson can file it, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit must "determine that it presents a claim not previously raised that is sufficient to meet § 2244(b)(2)'s new-rule or actual innocence provisions". Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 4/15/2021. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION

MICHAEL D. JACKSON
ADC #140871
v.

PETITIONER

No. 5:13-cv-343-DPM

DEXTER PAYNE, Director,
Arkansas Division of Correction

RESPONDENT

ORDER

Motion, Doc. 42, denied. Jackson's motion for reconsideration is,
1n substance, one to alter or amend the Court's 22 January 2021
Judgment. It is therefore untimely.

FED. R.

CIV. P. 59(e). And in any

event, nothing in Jackson's new paper changes the conclusion that his
Rule 60 motion is a second or successive habeas petition.
§ 2244(b)(2) & (3);

28 U.S.C.

Gonzalez v. Crosby. 545 U.S. 524, 528-32 (2005).

Before Jackson can file it, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit must "determine that it presents a claim not previously
raised that is sufficient to meet § 2244(b)(2)'s new-rule or actualinnocence prov1s1ons."
jurisdiction.

Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 530. This Court lacks

So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-2-