White v. Superintendent

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING 32 petitioner's Verified MOTION for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 60(B)(1) for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 12/13/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(sct)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION JERRY D. WHITE, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:15 CV 52 ORDER Jerry D. White, a pro se prisoner, filed a motion to reconsider the order dismissing this habeas corpus petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). A Rule 60(b) motion which argues the merits of a claim is a successive petition. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005). “A district court must dismiss a second or successive petition, without awaiting any response from the government, unless the court of appeals has given approval for its filing.” Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996) (emphasis in original). White has not been authorized by the Seventh Circuit to file a successive habeas corpus petition. Therefore the court lacks jurisdiction to rule on his motion. For these reasons, the Rule 60(b) motion (DE # 32) is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. Date: December 13, 2017 s/James T. Moody JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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?