Meador v. USA

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 1 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence filed by Petitioner Michael D. Meador. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to vacate is DENIED, without prejudice, because movant Michael Meador has not obtained permissi on from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to bring the motion in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 8/23/16. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL D. MEADOR,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-CV-164-CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is the motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28
U.S.C. ' 2255 [Doc. 1] filed by Michael Meador. In the instant motion, movant claims that the
Supreme Court case of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), should be applied to his
case in order to reduce his sentence.
A jury convicted Meador on three counts related to a conspiracy to distribute marijuana
and the murder of Sergio Burgos. Case No. 1:06CR134CDP. Meador was sentenced to life
imprisonment, and his conviction and sentence were affirmed on consolidated appeal. United
States v. Dinwiddie, 618 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2010). His petition for certiorari was denied by the
United States Supreme Court. Meador v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1547 (2011).
Meador previously filed a § 2255 motion that was denied on the merits. See Meador v.
United States, No. 1:12-CV-36-CDP (E.D. Mo.). The Court of Appeals denied his request for a
certificate of appealability and dismissed his initial appeal. Case No. 15-2297 (8th Cir. Dec. 2,
2015). It dismissed a second appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Case No. 16-1160 (8th Cir. Jan. 28,
2016).

Because Meador filed a previous motion under § 2255, the instant motion is a Asecond or
successive motion@ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 and 2255, but it has not been
certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as required by the AEDPA.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h):
A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in
section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to
contain-(1)
newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in
light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by
clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would
have found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2)
a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases
on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
unavailable.
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). As such, the
instant action will be dismissed without prejudice to refiling if, and when, movant obtains
permission from the Eighth Circuit to do so.
When a second or successive habeas petition is filed in a District Court without
authorization from the Court of Appeals, the Court should dismiss it, or, in its discretion, transfer
the motion to the appellate court so long as it is in the interests of justice. Boyd v. U.S., 304 F.3d
813, 814 (8th Cir. 2002). In this case the Court finds dismissal, rather than transfer, is in the
2

interests of justice. Meador was not charged as an Armed Career Criminal, and his sentence was
based on the sentencing guidelines for murder.

It does not appear that Johnson has any

relevance to his case.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to vacate is DENIED, without prejudice,
because movant Michael Meador has not obtained permission from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to bring the motion in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.

Dated this 23rd day of August, 2016.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3