Tyler v. USA

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movants motion to clarify [ECF No. 6] is GRANTED. 6 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 6/13/16. (CLA)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION LOREN MICHAEL TAYLOR, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 4:16-CV-757 HEA MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on movant’s motion to clarify. On May 31, 2016, the Court construed movant’s pleading to be a successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and it transferred the action to the Court of Appeals. Movant asks for clarification as to why the Court transferred this action. Movant says he did not intend his pleading to be a § 2255 motion. He says he only wanted the Court to appoint counsel for him so that he could file a proper application in the Court of Appeals. The Court construed the pleading as a successive § 2255 motion for two reasons. First, the Court cannot appoint counsel to represent movant in the Court of Appeals. Second, the pleading contained enough information to raise a cognizable claim under Johnson, if given a liberal construction. Because the one-year time limit for filing a claim under Johnson expires soon, the Court found it appropriate to so construe it and to transfer it to the Court of Appeals. Additionally, it its transfer Order, the Court directed the Clerk to notify the Federal Public Defender of movant’s case. If movant wishes to have counsel represent him before the Court of Appeals, he should file a motion in that court. This Court’s intention is that movant have a full and fair opportunity to raise his Johnson claim. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant’s motion to clarify [ECF No. 6] is GRANTED. Dated this day of June, 2016. HENRY E. AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?