Jones v. Norman

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's post-dismissal memoranda for relief relating to his current conditions of confinement [Doc. # 24 and # 25 ] are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall not be allowed to file any additional motions or memoranda in this closed case. Any additional correspondence sent by petitioner, unless it involves appellate matters, shall be returned to him. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on January 25, 2013. (BRP)

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
Before the Court are petitioner’s post-dismissal memoranda to the Court
relating to his alleged mistreatment at Jefferson City Correctional Center. The
Court dismissed petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus as duplicative
on December 13, 2012. And on January 7, 2013, the Court denied petitioner’s
motion for issuance of an arrest warrant of his current custodians, Jeff Norman and
Stephen Hawk.
In his newest memoranda before the Court, petitioner complains that he is in
eminent danger of serious risk of physical harm, but none of his specific
allegations show any risk of physical harm. Rather, he alleges a financial
conspiracy and a conspiracy to “shut me up by any means,” without any specific
allegations that he is in fact in physical danger. Moreover, the Court has reviewed
petitioner’s claims and found that they are completely lacking in lack merit. As

petitioner is aware, because he is a frequent filer before this Court, claims of this
type are simply not cognizable in a closed habeas corpus action.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s post-dismissal memoranda
for relief relating to his current conditions of confinement [Doc. #24 and #25] are
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall not be allowed to file
any additional motions or memoranda in this closed case. Any additional
correspondence sent by petitioner, unless it involves appellate matters, shall be
returned to him.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
Dated this 25th day of January, 2013.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-