CEJA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Entry Dismissing Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentenceand Denying a Certificate of Appealability - Because the petitioner has not shown that the Court of Appeals has authorized his filing of a successive § 2255 motion, the present m otion must be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue and a copy of this Entry shall be docketed in No. 2:11-cr-0037-JMS-CMM-2. The Court therefore denies a certificate of appealability (SEE ENTRY). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/6/2017. Copy to Petitioner via US Mail **Emailed to USCA re #17-3153** (DW) Modified on 11/7/2017 (MAT).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) Case No. 2:17-cv-00303-JMS-MJD
Entry Dismissing Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence
and Denying a Certificate of Appealability
Petitioner Nicholas Ceja seeks relief from his convictions in No. 2:11-cr-0037-JMS-CMM2. He does so after having previously challenged his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2255 and
after the challenge was adjudicated on the merits in No. 2:15-cv-0229-JMS-DKL.
Ceja’s current § 2255 motion must be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. This
disposition is entered pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases in the United
States District Courts and is based on the fact that this is a second or successive action for such
relief, though there is no indication that the Court of Appeals has authorized the filing of a second
or successive motion. Such permission is required by 28 U.S.C. ' 2244(b)(3)(A). Section 2244 has
been described as “self-executing.” Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). This
means that a district court lacks all jurisdiction over such a matter until permission to file is granted
by the Court of Appeals. Id. An action over which the district court lacks jurisdiction must be
dismissed. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 118 S. Ct. 1003 (1998). That is precisely
the disposition which is compelled in this case. This disposition is compelled entirely apart from
whether the defendant has or lacks a strong case for filing a successive ' 2255 motion. That is a
point on which the court expresses no opinion at this point and into which it has no authority to
Because the petitioner has not shown that the Court of Appeals has authorized his filing of
a successive § 2255 motion, the present motion must be summarily dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. See Melton, 359 F.3d 855 at 857. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue
and a copy of this Entry shall be docketed in No. 2:11-cr-0037-JMS-CMM-2.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing
§ 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court finds that Ceja has failed to show that
reasonable jurists would find it “debatable whether [this court] was correct in its procedural
ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court therefore denies a certificate of
IT IS SO ORDERED.
OAKDALE - FCI
OAKDALE FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
P.O. BOX 5000
OAKDALE, LA 71463
Lauren M. Wheatley
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (Evansville)
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?