Young v. United States of America

Filing 13

ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on May 9, 2017. The Government's 5 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is GRANTED. Petitioner's 1 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) is DENIED. Accordingly, Petitioner's remaining 10 11 12 motions are MOOT. (RS1, ilcd)

Download PDF
E-FILED Tuesday, 09 May, 2017 11:22:19 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION VINCENT YOUNG, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:14-cv-02308-SLD ) ) ) ) ORDER Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, Petitioner Vincent Young’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, ECF No. 1, by Respondent the United States of America. For the foregoing reasons, the motion is GRANTED. In 1999, Young was sentenced to 327 months in prison after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. See United States v. Young, No. 98-cr-20056, 2009 WL 484966 (C.D. Ill. 2009). The Seventh Circuit denied Young’s appeal. United States v. Young, 202 F.3d 276 (7th Cir. 1999). In 2000, Young filed his first § 2255 motion, which was denied by the District Court. Young v. United States, No. 00-cv-2311 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 26, 2002). A certificate of appealability did not issue. Id. at ECF No. 19. He requested and was denied permission to file a successive § 2255 motion in 2003. Young v. United States, No. 03-2813 (7th Cir. July 28, 2003). He was again denied a certificate of appealability by the Seventh Circuit. Young v. United States, No. 05-2547 (7th Cir. July 11, 2005). Young attempted to “reinstate” his initial § 2255 motion, which was dismissed by the district court. Mot. Reinstate, No. 00-cv2311, ECF No. 21. He again sought leave from the Seventh Circuit to file a successive 1 application for a § 2255 motion in 2014, Young v. United States, No. 14-3704 (7th Cir. Dec. 12, 2014), and then filed the instant § 2255 motion on December 15, 2014, prior to the Seventh Circuit ruling on his request. The request was denied by the Seventh Circuit on January 5, 2015. See Seventh Circuit Order Denying Appealability, ECF No. 6. Successive habeas corpus applications are not permitted to be filed in district court until the applicant has “move[d] in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Therefore, “the district court will lack jurisdiction unless the prisoner has first obtained [the Seventh Circuit’s] permission to file it.” Curry v. United States, 507 F.3d 603, 604 (7th Cir. 2007). Young filed his most recent § 2255 motion without the permission Seventh Circuit. Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the motion. Petitioner’s § 2255 motion is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Entered May 9, 2017. s/ Sara Darrow SARA DARROW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?