Jones v. Norman

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED as duplicative. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 12/13/2012. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RAFAEL A. JONES, SR.,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFF NORMAN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12CV2102 TCM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s submission of an application
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 The petition will be
summarily dismissed as duplicative.
In the instant petition, Jones attempts to challenge three state convictions:
State v. Jones, 07SL-CR3429-01 (21st Jud. Cir); State v. Jones, 07SL-CR06638
(21st Jud. Cir.); State v. Jones, 0822-CR07366 (22nd Jud. Cir.). Petitioner has also
included in his application for writ of habeas corpus various contentions relating to
his conditions of confinement, including an allegation of a denial of access to

1

Petitioner asserts in his application for writ of habeas corpus that he is bringing his
petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2256. However, § 2256 allows only for habeas corpus
proceedings in bankruptcy court. Because petitioner is attempting to challenge a state court
judgment, his claims are more appropriately brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

courts, a claim that his due process rights have been violated and an assertion that
he has been retaliated against in violation of the First Amendment.
In State v. Jones, 07SL-CR3429-01 (21st Jud. Cir.) and State v. Jones,
07SL-CR06638 (21st Jud. Cir.), petitioner was convicted on two counts of felony
non-support and one count of second degree domestic assault. Petitioner was
given a suspended imposition of sentence and placed on parole. Petitioner
subsequently violated parole, and on July 29, 2010, the court sentenced petitioner
to three years’ imprisonment. He is currently challenging his convictions and
sentence in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in Jones v. Norman,
4:11CV1310 LMB (E.D. Mo.).
In State v. Jones, 0822-CR07366 (22nd Jud. Cir.), petitioner was convicted
of domestic assault and resisting arrest and sentenced to five years in prison. He is
currently challenging his conviction and sentence in this Court in a habeas corpus
petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in Jones v. Lawrence, 4:10CV495
LMB (E.D. Mo.).
Because the instant case challenges the same three state convictions and
sentences as the of two pending cases currently before the Court, the instant
application for writ of habeas corpus will be dismissed as duplicative.2

2

See also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
-2-

To the extent that petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus also
contains claims relating to his conditions of confinement, he must bring these
claims in a separate civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Court notes that petitioner is a frequent filer before this Court, and he
may not proceed in forma pauperis in civil actions because he has incurred at least
three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The instant filing appears to be an
attempt to circumvent § 1915(g) through creative titling of his pleadings. This is
impermissible.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED as duplicative.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED AS
MOOT.
Dated this 13th day of December, 2012.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-