Jones v. Norris, CORR AR

Filing 111

ORDER directing the Clerk of Court to docket no further motions from Plaintiff in this case without prior approval from the Court. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on November 28, 2018. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
MICHAEL L. JONES
v.

PETITIONER
Case No. 4:99-cv-4134

WENDY KELLY, Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction

RESPONDENT
ORDER

On November 28, 2018, the Court denied Petitioner’s second Motion to Reconsider
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). The Court also denied six other motions
relating to Petitioner’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion for lack of jurisdiction. At present, there are no
pending motions docketed.
Petitioner is currently incarcerated in the Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Department of
Correction serving a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. On November 12, 2013,
Petitioner filed his second petition for habeas corpus relief with this Court. Petitioner’s petition
was returned, and Petitioner was instructed that he needed permission from the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals to file a successive habeas petition. The Eighth Circuit subsequently denied
Petitioner’s request to file a successive petition for habeas relief.
In an attempt to subvert the Eighth Circuit’s ruling, Petitioner has begun filing habeas
corpus petitions disguised as Rule 60(b)(6) motions. Petitioner’s motions effectively amount to
moving the Court to reconsider past denied motions to reconsider and reargue the same points
raised before the Eighth Circuit when Petitioner was denied permission to file a successive habeas

petition. 1 Moreover, Petitioner has filed at least twenty other motions in support of his effort to
reopen habeas proceedings.
Petitioner has been repeatedly informed that his Rule 60 motions amount to successive
habeas corpus petitions that the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over unless Petitioner obtains
the Eighth Circuit’s permission. The Court finds these frivolous motions disruptive to the Court’s
docket and an unnecessary use of the Court’s resources. Thus, the Clerk of Court is directed to
docket no further motions from Plaintiff in this case without prior approval from the Court. The
Clerk shall inform the Court if further motions are received from Plaintiff, and the Court will
instruct the Clerk on whether to docket the motions. Until further order of this Court, the Clerk is
directed to return to Plaintiff any tendered motions not approved by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 28th day of November, 2018.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

Including amended and supplemental motions, Petitioner has filed at least five Rule 60 motions requesting habeas
relief.

1

2