Parker v. Hammers
Filing
32
ORDER AND OPINION entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/3/2018. For the reasons set forth above, the Court Petitioner's for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Furthermore, as this Court does not have jurisdiction t o hear the underlying writ, Petitioner's ancillary motions (ECF Nos. 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 28, 30, and 31) are DENIED and his Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis is MOOT. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. See full written Order.(VH, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 03 August, 2018 04:37:08 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER PARKER,
Petitioner,
v.
JUSTIN HAMMERS,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 17-1582
ORDER AND OPINION
Before this Court is the Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
filed by Petitioner Christopher Parker (“Petitioner”). For the reasons set forth below, the
Petitioner’s Writ is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Petitioner pleaded guilty in Illinois to criminal sexual assault, for which he was sentenced
to 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, plus a supervised release term of 3 year to life. Petitioner
has previously filed habeas corpus petitions under § 2254 challenging the constitutionality of his
mandatory supervised release on due process grounds. Parker v. Korte, No. CV 16-908-DRH
(S.D. Ill. Sept. 16, 2016) Parker v. Roeckeman, No. CV 13-206-DRH, (S.D. Ill. July 14, 2014).
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois dismissed both petitions. Id.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) created a set of
procedures that a prisoner “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court,” 28 U.S.C. §
2254(a), must follow if he wishes to file a “second or successive” habeas corpus application
challenging that custody, § 2244(b)(1). Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007). Before filing
a § 2254 in the district court, a prisoner “shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order
authorizing the district court to consider the application.” § 2244(b)(3)(A). AEDPA's provisions
require that second and successive § 2254 applications be dismissed unless “the claim relies on a
new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive ... by the Supreme Court” or presents facts that
“could not have been discovered previously” and tend to show actual innocence. 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(2). The United States Supreme Court held without authorization from the court of
appeals, the district court is without jurisdiction to entertain a petition. Burton, 549 U.S. at 152.
On December 1, 2017, Petitioner submitted to the Seventh Circuit a Motion for an Order
Authorizing the District Court to Entertain a Second or Successive Petitioner for Collateral
Review, as required by § 2254. Parker v. Hammers, No. 17-3452 (7th. Cir. 2018). The Seventh
Circuit subsequently denied Plaintiff’s motion finding Petitioner’s successive petition did not
challenge a new or retroactive constitutional rule or present evidence that was previously
unavailable. Id. On December 21, 2017, Petitioner filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court
and subsequently, filed a Motion to Amend or Correct on May 10, 2018. (ECF Nos. 1 and 17).
Both of these petitions challenge the constitutionality of his mandatory supervised release. (ECF
Nos. 1 and 17). Without the permission of the Seventh Circuit, this Court does not have
jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s successive petition and therefore, must DISMISS this case.
PENDING MOTIONS
Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED and
was considered in the dismissal of this case. Furthermore, as this Court does not have jurisdiction
to hear the underlying writ, Petitioner’s Motion to Substitute Party (ECF No.15), Motion for
Habeas Bond (ECF No. 16), Motion to Amend Relief Requested (ECF No. 17), Motion for
Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 18), Emergency Amendment and Motion for Sua Sponte
Judgment (ECF No. 21), Motion for Subpoena (ECF No. 22), Motion for Criminal Investigation
(ECF No. 28), Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 30) and Motion to Add
Additional Ground (ECF No. 31) are all DENIED. Petitioner’s Motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 19) is MOOT as he already paid the filing fee.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court Petitioner’s for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Furthermore, as this Court does not have
jurisdiction to hear the underlying writ, Petitioner’s ancillary motions (ECF Nos. 7, 15, 16, 17, 18,
21, 22, 28, 30, and 31) are DENIED and his Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis is MOOT. The
Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2018.
/s/ Michael M. Mihm
Michael M. Mihm
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?