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)

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