Box v. Kemna

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus, styled as a "Motion for Rule 60(b) Review" is DENIED and DISMISSED.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 4/10/13. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KEITH D. BOX,
Petitioner,
v.
MIKE KEMNA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13CV540 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s “Motion for Rule 60(b) Review,”
which this Court has reviewed and construed as an application for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition is successive and shall be
summarily dismissed.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts provides that a district court shall summarily dismiss a § 2254 petition if it
plainly appears that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.
In 1995 in Missouri State Court, petitioner was found guilty of attempted
robbery, first degree assault and armed criminal action. As a prior offender, he was
sentenced by the state court to a fifteen-year term of imprisonment and two terms of
life imprisonment, all three sentences to run concurrently. Petitioner sought state and
federal habeas relief after the conviction. Petitioner’s applications for relief were

denied at every level. The denial of petitioner’s federal habeas petition was affirmed
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Petitioner subsequently
sought to bring a successive habeas petition in the Eighth Circuit, which was also
denied.
To the extent that petitioner seeks to relitigate claims that he brought in his
original petition, those claims must be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). To
the extent that petitioner seeks to bring new claims for habeas relief, petitioner must
obtain leave from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit before he
can bring those claims in this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner has not
been granted leave to file a successive habeas petition in this Court. As a result, the
petition shall be dismissed.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s application for writ of habeas
corpus, styled as a “Motion for Rule 60(b) Review” is DENIED and DISMISSED.
Dated this 10th day of April, 2013.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-