Hazelett v. USA

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant's motion to stay [ECF No. 2 ] is DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED, and this action is D ISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. 2 MOTION to Stay and Hold Habeas Corpus Petition in Abeyance filed by Petitioner Ricky Hazelett, 1 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Under 28 USC Section 2255 filed by Petitioner Ricky Hazelett. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 7/14/16. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RICKY HAZELETT,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16-CV-1018 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on movant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion is denied without prejudice.
Movant argues that his sentence is unconstitutional after Johnson v. United States, 135
S.Ct. 2551 (2015). The motion is successive. Hazelett v. United States, No. 4:10-CV-2214 JCH;
Hazelett v. United States, No. 4:04-CV-1511 JCH. He has filed an application for permission to
file a successive motion to vacate in the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which remains
pending. Hazelett v. United States, No. 16-2832 (8th Cir.). Movant seeks to hold the instant
case in abeyance pending the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The requirement that prisoners obtain authorization from the circuit court before filing a
second or successive petition in the district court is jurisdictional. Burton v. Stewart, 127 S. Ct.
793, 796 (2007).
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The requirement that jurisdiction be
established as a threshold matter springs from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the
United States and is inflexible and without exception.” Kessler v. Nat’l Enterprises, Inc., 347
F.3d 1076, 1081 (8th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks omitted; emphasis added).

Because movant has not received permission from the Court of Appeals to file this
action, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the motion or to hold this matter in abeyance.
Therefore, the motion is denied, and this action is dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(h)(3).
Finally, movant has not met the burden for issuing a certificate of appealability under 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant’s motion to stay [ECF No. 2] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 14th day of July, 2016.

JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2