Lawson v. USA

Filing 1

OPINION AND ORDER: DISMISSING FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 161 the Petitioner's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence, filed in 1:13cr4. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 12/7/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. JULIUS LAWSON, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO.: 1:13-CR-4-TLS (1:17-CV-495) OPINION AND ORDER The Defendant, Julius Lawson, is serving a sentence for his role in attempting to rob a person having custody of mail matter, money, or property of the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 2114(a), using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and interfering with the performance of duties of an employee of the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment of Conviction Under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 [ECF No. 161], filed on December 5, 2017. The Defendant’s Motion is successive, the Court having previously denied a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody [ECF No. 135], in an Opinion and Order [ECF No. 146] dated February 27, 2017. Prisoners are barred from filing second or successive habeas petitions unless they obtain certification to do so from the court of appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (providing that a “second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals”); Suggs v. United States, 705 F.3d 279, 282 (7th Cir. 2013) (“Without authorization from the court of appeals, the district court has no jurisdiction to hear the petition.” (citing Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152–53, (2007))); United States v. Carraway, 478 F.3d 845, 849 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that unless the defendant “seeks and obtains permission from the court of appeals to file [a second or successive] motion, the district court is without jurisdiction to entertain his request”). CONCLUSION Because the Defendant has not obtained permission from the Court of Appeals to file a second habeas motion, the Court DISMISSES FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION the Defendant’s Motion [ECF No. 161]. SO ORDERED on December 7, 2017. s/ Theresa L. Springmann CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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?