Ha v. United States of America

Filing 20

ORDER: Denying 18 Pro Se Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioner's motion is denied and dismissed in its entirety, and no certificate for appealability will issue. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 11/27/12. (Copy w/NEF mailed to Petitioner Khoi Van Ha) (kfs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION

KHOI VAN HA,
Petitioner,

No. C 11-4012-MWB

vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

ORDER REGARDING
PETITIONER’S PRO SE MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

Respondent.
____________________
This case is before me on petitioner Khoi Van Ha’s Pro Se Motion For
Reconsideration (docket no. 18) (Motion), filed on May 11, 2012. In his Motion, Ha
argues that I should reconsider my prior dismissal of his § 2255 Motion (docket no. 1),
because he received ineffective assistance of counsel from the attorney who was appointed
to represent him.

Motion at 2-3.

Ha seeks to have me reconsider my previous

Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Judgment (docket nos. 7 & 8), denying him §2255
relief, or in the alternative seeks the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Motion at
3. The respondent has not filed a response to Ha’s Motion.
Ha previously filed a Motion To Vacate Judgment (docket no 15) on March 26,
2012. Ha sought to have me vacate my prior denial of his § 2255 motion on the ground
that his habeas counsel had never communicated with him and had filed a supplemental
brief without consent or consultation.

Motion to Vacate, at 2-3. On May 1, 2012, I

entered an Order (docket no. 17), denying Ha’s Motion to Vacate, after construing it as
a Rule 60(b) motion, and finding that it was, in effect, a successive § 2255 motion.
Even though Ha has asked that his current motion be construed differently, he has
alleged no different grounds for reconsideration than he stated in his prior Motion to

Vacate. For all the reasons discussed in my prior Order (docket no. 17), disposing of that
motion, I determine that Ha’s Motion For Reconsideration is again a successive § 2255
motion for which he has failed to obtain authorization from the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals. See United States v. Lambros, 404 F.3d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir. 2005).
THEREFORE, Ha’s May 11, 2012 Pro Se Motion For Reconsideration (docket
no.18) is denied and dismissed in its entirety, and no certificate for appealability will
issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 27th day of November, 2012.

__________________________________
MARK W. BENNETT
U. S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

2