Boyd v. USA

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. This case was properly closed for lack of jurisdiction because movant filed it before he received permission to file a successive motion. Because he how has permission, the proper procedure was to open a new case. Movant is not prejudiced by the procedure. He should not file any more documents in this case. Rather, he should file any future documents in Boyd v. United States, No. 4:16-CV-2148 ERW, which the Court is currently reviewing. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant's motion for clarification is GRANTED. [Doc. No. 9 ] Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 1/18/2017. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
WILLIE E. BOYD,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16-CV-1878 ERW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on movant’s motion for clarification. Movant says he
does not understand why this case is closed and a new § 2255 case was opened after he received
permission from the Court of Appeals to file a successive motion.
This case was properly closed for lack of jurisdiction because movant filed it before he
received permission to file a successive motion. Because he how has permission, the proper
procedure was to open a new case. Movant is not prejudiced by the procedure. He should not
file any more documents in this case. Rather, he should file any future documents in Boyd v.
United States, No. 4:16-CV-2148 ERW, which the Court is currently reviewing.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant’s motion for clarification is GRANTED.
[Doc. No. 9]
So Ordered this 18th day of January, 2017.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE