Moore v. USA

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Moores motion (Doc. 18 ) and DISMISSES it for lack of jurisdiction. The Court DENIES as moot the remaining motions. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 7/9/2014. (jdh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANTHONY E. MOORE,
Petitioner,
vs.

Case No. 12-cv-1107-JPG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Anthony E. Moore’s motion for
discovery (Doc. 16), motion for leave to file pleading in excess of the page limitation (Doc. 17),
motion to reopen case (Doc. 18), and motion for enlargement of time (Doc. 19). Respondent
United States of America filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Doc. 22).
The Court entered judgment (Doc. 13) on July 24, 2013, denying Moore’s motion under
28 U.S.C. § 2255. In his current motion, Moore asks the Court to reopen this case so he may
amend his § 2255 motion. A post-judgment motion that advances a new claim, that is, a new
ground for relief from a conviction, or an attack on the Court’s prior resolution of a ground for
relief on the merits is a successive petition. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531 (2005)
(habeas context); see United States v. Scott, 414 F.3d 815, 816 (7th Cir. 2005) (considering postjudgment Rule 6(e) motion). However, a motion that does not assert or reassert claims of error
in the conviction and instead points to a defect in the integrity of the § 2255 proceedings is not a
successive petition. Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532; see Scott, 414 F.3d at 816.
Moore’s pending motion seeks to reopen his case to reassert his previous arguments and
potentially assert a new argument. He does not argue there was a defect in the proceedings.

Rather, he argues the non-attorney helping him prepare his arguments became unavailable. It is
therefore a successive petition under the rule of Gonzalez. In order for this Court to consider a
successive petition, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals must certify the successive petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, ¶ 8. Curry v. United States, 507 F.3d 603, 604 (7th Cir. 2007),
cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2925 (2008); Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996).
The Court of Appeals has not made such a certification. Therefore, the Court does not have
jurisdiction to consider Moore’s motion (Doc. 18) and DISMISSES it for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court DENIES as moot the remaining motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 9, 2014
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2