Meeks v. USA

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this disposition would not be taken in good faith and Meeks should not be permitted to prosecute an appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Richard F. Cebull on 7/27/2012. Mailed to Meeks. (TAG, )

FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

JUL 272012
PATRICK E. DUFFY CLERK

BY

----rloAnep;:'huty:-i"C:;:::":'err.-k- ­

BILLINGS DIVISION

JOHN MORGAN MEEKS,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
lJNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent.
)

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
BILLINGS DIVISION

Cause No. CV 12-91-BLG-RFC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

On July 20, 2012, the Court received from Petitioner Meeks a document
purporting to be a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Meeks
descends into profanity and use ofinitials to conceal what he is really saying. He also
has not paid the filing fee, but there is no need to delay resolution of this matter on
that basis.
None of Meeks's allegations can be addressed in a § 2241 petition. It is not
possible to use § .2241 as a vehicle to challenge determinations in previous civil or
criminal cases in this Court or to resurrect litigation concluded many years ago.

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION / PAGE 1

Counsel will not be appointed in this action because this action is frivolous.
Just as Judge Molloy has already told Meeks, to the extent he seeks free copies
of documents from the Clerk of Court, he himself or his lawyers received the free
copies to which he was entitled in the course ofthe criminal case and any other case
he has litigated or been involved with in this Court. He has also been served with
copies of all orders issued after entry ofjudgment. Documents in the public record
are available to him at his expense but not at public expense.
To the extent Meeks seeks to show that his conviction is invalid, he must file
a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the criminal case, and he must first obtain
authorization from the Court of Appeals to do that because he has already filed a §
2255 motion and litigated it to completion.

Meeks's complaints about

characterizations of him arising from the contents of his criminal record as set forth
in the presentence report in the criminal case, e.g., Pet. at 7, should have been
addressed on direct appeal or in his § 2255 motion. As they were not, they cannot be
altered now.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition (doc. 1) is
DISMISSED. The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A), that
any appeal from this disposition would not be taken in good faith and Meeks should

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION / PAGE 2

not be pennitted to pro~e an appeal in fonna pauperis.
DATED this2{l day of July, 2012.

Richard . Cebull, Chief Judge
United States District Court

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION / PAGE 3