Revels v. Norman

Filing 26

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)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION JAY REVELS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. JEFF NORMAN, Respondent, 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 corpus. 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. Accordingly, 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 2

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?