Cox v. Kamp

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 14) is denied. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 8/11/2017. (JMC)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL COX, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. GARY KAMP, Defendant, No. 1:17-CV-77 PLC MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration. For the following reasons, the motion will be denied. In the motion, the plaintiff cites to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, he is not in federal custody, nor is he challenging a federal court judgment. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to relief under § 2255. Also, as the Court previously found, the plaintiff’s claims are frivolous. He cannot sue a state court judge in a federal court simply because he disagrees with the judge’s decisions. Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003) (judicial immunity). Further, federal district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of state court decisions. Postma v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan, 74 F.3d 160, 162 (8th Cir. 1996). So, plaintiff’s challenge to the sentence imposed by a state court is not cognizable in these proceedings. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 14) is denied. Dated this 11th day of August, 2017. ____________________________ CAROL E. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?