Morris v. Norman
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no order to show cause shall issue as to the respondent,because the instant petition is su ccessive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioners application for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioners motion for an evidentiary hearing [Doc. #2] is DENIED as moot. A separate Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. 2 Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 1/14/13. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ANTHONY C. MORRIS,
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the application of Anthony C. Morris for
leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee [Doc. #3].
Upon consideration of the financial information provided with the application, the
Court finds that petitioner is financially unable to pay any portion of the filing fee,
and therefore, his motion will be granted.
Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1
Petitioner is challenging the constitutionality of his April 24, 1981 capital murder
conviction in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Petitioner states
that he previously brought a § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging
his 1981 conviction, and that he was denied relief, both in the district court and on
appeal. See Morris v. Delo, No. 4:90-CV-643(C)(1) (E.D. Mo.). Petitioner states that
The Court notes that petitioner filed this action as a "Petition to Re-Open
Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus under Federal Rule 60(b)(6).” The Court has
liberally construed the petition as a new habeas action brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254.
he later filed an application for permission to file a second or successive habeas
petition, but his application was denied.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) provides that "[b]efore a second or successive
application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall
move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to
consider the application." There is no indication that the Court of Appeals has
certified the instant habeas application as required by § 2244(b)(3)(A), and thus, this
Court lacks jurisdiction, and the action will be summarily dismissed without
prejudice. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no order to show cause shall issue as to the
respondent,because the instant petition is successive under 28 U.S.C. §
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s application for a writ of
habeas corpus is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary
hearing [Doc. #2] is DENIED as moot.
A separate Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 14th day of January, 2013.
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?