Stark v. USA
ORDERED: that the Government's Motion to Dismiss (Docs. 2) is GRANTED and Defendant Stark's pro se 2255 (Doc. #1, Crim Doc. #91) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed on 9/14/20 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Copy of this order mailed to: Ivan Joseph Stark, Jr., 500 W. 2nd Street, Rolla, MO 65401.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
IVAN JOSEPH STARK, JR.,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civil Case No. 20-4175-CV-C-SRB
Crim Case No. 18-4121-01-CR-SRB
Before the Court is Petitioner Ivan Joseph Stark, Jr.’s (“Stark”) pro se 2255 Motion.
(Doc. #1, Crim Doc. #91.)1 Stark asks the Court to “correct his sentence” or “vacate or set aside
his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” (Doc. #1, p. 1.) In response to Stark’s instant motion, the
Government filed a Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Pro Se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
(Doc. #2.) For the reasons discussed below, the Government’s Motion (Doc. #2) is granted and
Stark’s Motion (Doc. #1, Crim. Doc. #91) is dismissed without prejudice.
On July 30, 2020, this Court sentenced Stark in the above-captioned criminal case to a
120-month term of imprisonment, a five-year term of supervised release to follow, restitution in
a total amount of $72,084.35, and a total special assessment of $200. (Crim. Doc. #68.) Stark
appealed that sentence on August 10, 2020 (Crim. Doc. #76), and his appeal remains pending
before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. See United States v. Ivan Stark, Jr., No. 20-2669.
On September 8, 2020, Stark filed his instant pro se motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The
Government moves to dismiss Stark’s instant § 2255 motion, stating this Court lacks jurisdiction
to decide the motion due to his pending appeal.
Defendant Stark also filed the instant motion in his above-captioned criminal case, United States v. Stark,
No. 18-CR-04121-SRB-1. All references to “Crim Doc.” correspond to docket entries in that criminal case.
“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers
jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects
of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56,
58 (1982). “This rule applies with equal force in criminal cases.” United States v. Ledbetter,
882 F.2d 1345, 1347 (8th Cir. 1989) (citing Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 214 (1937)).
In the context of a § 2255 motion, a district court should not consider a habeas corpus petition
when a direct appeal from the judgment is pending since disposition of the appeal may render the
motion moot or unnecessary. Downs v. Ciccone, 307 F. Supp. 1309, 1310 (W.D. Mo. 1969).
The Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to decide Stark’s instant § 2255 motion. Stark
has directly appealed his criminal sentence to the Eighth Circuit, which is the same sentence he
now challenges through his instant habeas corpus petition. Since it is possible that disposition of
Stark’s appeal could render his instant § 2255 petition moot or lead to inconsistent results, this
Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain his motion.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #2)
is GRANTED and Defendant Stark’s pro se 2255 Motion (Doc. #1, Crim Doc. #91) is DENIED
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Stephen R. Bough
STEPHEN R. BOUGH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATE: September 14, 2020
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?