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)

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