Revels v. Norman
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's second motion for relief from judgment 25 is DENIED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen on 1/26/17. (CAR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
No. 4:12-CV-1903 JMB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s second motion for relief from judgment.
The motion is denied.
Petitioner rehashes the same arguments he made in his first motion for relief from
judgment. Primarily, he seeks de novo review of the Court’s judgment by a district judge. The
law, however, does not allow for such review in this case because both he and respondent
expressly consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and
Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. No. 19. Under § 636(c)(3), therefore,
petitioner may only seek review of this Court’s decisions in the Court of Appeals.
Again, petitioner may not bring his claim regarding the indictment in this Court unless he
is given permission by the Court of Appeals to bring a successive petition for writ of habeas
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530 (2005).
Therefore, the motion is denied with prejudice.
Finally, petitioner has not met the requirements for issuing a certificate of appealability.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s second motion for relief from judgment
[ECF No. 25] is DENIED with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
/s/ John M. Bodenhausen
JOHN M. BODENHAUSEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 26th day of January, 2017
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?