Williams v. USA

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant's motion to stay is DENIED. [ECF No. 1] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movants motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 7/14/16. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
LADONTA C. WILLIAMS,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-CV-158 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on movant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion is denied without prejudice.
Movant argues that his sentence is unconstitutional after Johnson v. United States, 135
S.Ct. 2551 (2015). The motion is successive. Williams v. United States, No. 1:06-CV-193 CAS.
He has filed an application for permission to file a successive motion to vacate in the Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which remains pending. Williams v. United States, No. 16-2776
(8th Cir.). Movant seeks to hold the instant case in abeyance pending the decision of the Court
of Appeals.
The requirement that prisoners obtain authorization from the circuit court before filing a
second or successive petition in the district court is jurisdictional. Burton v. Stewart, 127 S. Ct.
793, 796 (2007).
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The requirement that jurisdiction be
established as a threshold matter springs from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the
United States and is inflexible and without exception.” Kessler v. Nat’l Enterprises, Inc., 347
F.3d 1076, 1081 (8th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks omitted; emphasis added).

Because movant has not received permission from the Court of Appeals to file this
action, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the motion or to hold this matter in abeyance.
Therefore, the motion is denied, and this action is dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(h)(3) (dismissal is required, not discretionary).
Finally, movant has not met the burden for issuing a certificate of appealability under 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant’s motion to stay is DENIED. [ECF No. 1]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this14th day of July, 2016.

2